The Marxist-vs-capitalist False Dichotomy

[Stars]

Taxation requires a monopoly.

All you are doing is handing power to worse people than landlords and creating an even larger, more powerful monopoly.

Jesus.

Guillotines are your chosen headache remedy I take it?

No - because the reform involves them handing it back, because the land simply does not belong to them.

The landlord cannot collect land rent unless he hands it back

The state cannot collect land rent unles it hands it back

The generalisation is that NOBODY can use the state-like power to collect land rent from others unless they hand it back.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Stars

[HumanAction]

No - because the reform involves them handing it back

The landlord cannot collect land rent unless he hands it back

The state cannot collect land rent unles he hands it back

The generalisation is that NOBODY can use the state-like power to collect land rent from others unless they hand it back.

And a trusty state assessor who probably stands to benefit from a higher rather than lower tax will be determining what is or is not land rent and then taxing it.... What could possibly go wrong?

Honestly it sounds like putting a blindfolded Dracula in charge of a blood bank.

[Injin]

It is an imposition that imposes charges for your imposition upon others. No imposition, no charge

A compromise

You can get a handout from him in a free market by simply hassling his use of the land until he pays

This compromise is better for both people

"In a compromise between food and poison only death can win."

[Traktion]

Very interesting thread - only just caught up with the crest of it!

IMO, land value tax is batter than what we have now. Combined with monetary reforms to stop fractional reserve banking and prices will adjust much more slowly, making it easier for the government to keep up with the market prices - perhaps movements would become almost glacial?

Hell, no system is perfect and short of binning the lot, we are always working to the best compromise.

We have to also think of a way to get to there, from here, which as has been pointed out, isn't easy. Getting from here to the above will be a lot easier than tearing up the rule book and telling everyone that they no longer own their land though.

[Injin]

Very interesting thread - only just caught up with the crest of it!

IMO, land value tax is batter than what we have now. Combined with monetary reforms to stop fractional reserve banking and prices will adjust much more slowly, making it easier for the government to keep up with the market prices - perhaps movements would become almost glacial?

Hell, no system is perfect and short of binning the lot, we are always working to the best compromise.

We have to also think of a way to get to there, from here, which as has been pointed out, isn't easy. Getting from here to the above will be a lot easier than tearing up the rule book and telling everyone that they no longer own their land though.

You cannot stop fractional reserve banking.

[Traktion]

You cannot stop fractional reserve banking.

I mean in Sterling. Let them do what they like with their own currencies.

EDIT: Please clarify your argument too. It is pretty easy to insist that no banks can counterfeit money held in Sterling. For example, if every unit of Sterling currency had its own serial and every unit of Sterling currency on the banks balance had to have such a serial, a simple audit would show up any fraud.

If they wanted to create copious IOUs, in a free banking model, they would soon be rumbled.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Traktion

[Stars]

And a trusty state assessor who probably stands to benefit from a higher rather than lower tax will be determining what is or is not land rent and then taxing it.... What could possibly go wrong?

Honestly it sounds like putting a blindfolded Dracula in charge of a blood bank.

He doesn't stand to benefit because he is competing to offer the lowest bid for the admin task...he is a worker offering his labour to an employer.

The only systemic beneficiary that could work the system is a link-up between landlords and government to reduce the tax, so unearned benefits go back to landlording and the landlords pay operators in government for this to happen. This is the mechanism by which such reforms are resisted.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Stars

[HumanAction]

He doesn't stand to benefit because he is competing to offer the lowest bid for the admin task...he is a worker offering his labour to an employer.

So you think there is no incentive for those who derive income from the state to go with those with a tendency to value high then? Seems to me that state employees could actually be better off by paying a little more for the 'right-kind' of valuations. Australia's NSW seems to generate 'conservative' ( read on the high side ) valuations for instance.

The only systemic beneficiary that could work the system is a link-up between landlords and government to reduce the tax, so unearned benefits go back to landlording and the landlords pay operators in government for this to happen. This is the mechanism by which such reforms are resisted.

Pretty obviously state employees do in fact benefit from high tax revenues but here you are denying what is remarkably obvious as usual.....

And you didnt even comment on the real killer which is simply that the state assessor cannot have sufficient info to determine market values anyway, he or she will be guesstimating at best. Without solving that problem it's all moot anyway as it is the key flaw in all this.

Edited September 10, 2009 by HumanAction

[Injin]

I mean in Sterling. Let them do what they like with their own currencies.

EDIT: Please clarify your argument too. It is pretty easy to insist that no banks can counterfeit money held in Sterling. For example, if every unit of Sterling currency had its own serial and every unit of Sterling currency on the banks balance had to have such a serial, a simple audit would show up any fraud.

If they wanted to create copious IOUs, in a free banking model, they would soon be rumbled.

All fractional reserve banking does is pretend to have something convincingly - it doesn't matter what the item is at all.

Could be elephants, doesn't matter - as long as the ability to misdirect is present in humans, fractional reserve banking cannot be stopped.

[Traktion]

All fractional reserve banking does is pretend to have something convincingly - it doesn't matter what the item is at all.

Could be elephants, doesn't matter - as long as the ability to misdirect is present in humans, fractional reserve banking cannot be stopped.

If Sterling is of fixed supply and a bank claims to have more Sterling than is in existence, it is pretty obvious something fraudulent is going on.

I am happy for banks to deal in their own currencies and print as much as they like. They will only be inflating their currency in proportion to Sterling and other bank currencies out there. Doing this will lose trust and customers quite quickly though, which isn't good for business. The system would self regulate.

[Stars]

So you think there is no incentive for those who derive income from the state to go with those with a tendency to value high then?

Presently, there can be a conspiracy to engage in high taxation because those voting for high taxes do not necessarily lose the revenue the government gains by it. What you are forgetting in this case is that any 'admin cost' comes equally out of everyone's dividend. So if admin costs are competed down (by voter's self interest), the only people who could possibly gain from higher valuations would be people receiving the dividend. However, this interest is also not real , because if the government tried to charge more than the rent surplus, then total revenues would fall and the cd would actually reduce.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Stars

[Injin]

If Sterling is of fixed supply and a bank claims to have more Sterling than is in existence, it is pretty obvious something fraudulent is going on.

Not generally known for their honesty in bookkeeping, aren't conmen.

You cannot stop fractional reserve lending any more than you can stop lying or murder - but you can sort it out properly afterwards.

I am happy for banks to deal in their own currencies and print as much as they like. They will only be inflating their currency in proportion to Sterling and other bank currencies out there. Doing this will lose trust and customers quite quickly though, which isn't good for business. The system would self regulate.

It would - if it were free to let anyone who wanted to create money and engage in FRB, you are quite right.

[Injin]

Presently, there can be a conspiracy to engage in high taxation because those voting for high taxes do not necessarily lose the revenue the government gains by it. What you are forgetting in this case is that any 'admin cost' comes equally out of everyone's dividend. So if admin costs are competed down (by people's self interest), the only people who could possibly gain from higher valuations would be people receiving the dividend. However, this interest is also not real , because if the government tried to charge more than the rent surplus, then total revenues would fall and the cd would actually reduce.

Place in egypt.

River.

Can't quite think of the name at present......

[Harry Sacks]

The asset is not produced and so taxing its possession sensibly does not make it more scarce or more expensive to use. landlords already maximally tax the possession of land in rents and exchange prices, so what happens is the government's tax displaces the landlord's tax and the price is discounted by the amount of tax.

If you intend to abolish taxation entirely, then ok, but if instead of taxing land you intend to drop the taxation on people for working trading and doing commerce then you are making a very big mistake

I think the fundamental issue is simple, the more people there are the less land there is to go around.

[Stars]

I think the fundamental issue is simple, the more people there are the less land there is to go around.

Yes - and nobody has any more right to it than anyone else

[Injin]

Yes - and nobody has any more right to it than anyone else

Sure they do - already explained to you why.

[Traktion]

Not generally known for their honesty in bookkeeping, aren't conmen.

You cannot stop fractional reserve lending any more than you can stop lying or murder - but you can sort it out properly afterwards.

I see your point - agreed.

It would - if it were free to let anyone who wanted to create money and engage in FRB, you are quite right.

Any idea what legislation is in place to prevent this from happening or do you think it is a case of counterfeiting Sterling just being far more profitable?

[Stars]

Place in egypt.

River.

So, which bit do you disagree with?

[Stars]

Sure they do - already explained to you why.

If that's the case, you accept the primary argument for the priveliges of state

Edited September 10, 2009 by Stars

[Injin]

If that's the case, you accept the primary argument for the priveliges of state

No I don't.

You keep mistaking attacking others with the ability to defend. The state has the moral and legal right in most peoples minds to attack anyone it likes for any reason it fancies. This has ****** all to do with land ownership, though land ownership is one of the things the statists will happily stove your head in about.

Your bugbear is a symptom of a larger problem and cannot be fixed without adressing it.

[Injin]

I see your point - agreed.

Any idea what legislation is in place to prevent this from happening or do you think it is a case of counterfeiting Sterling just being far more profitable?

Oh it's the taxation and legal tender laws that make this whole thing "work." Removing those but retaining common law rights to not be defrauded would be a decent start.

[HumanAction]

No I don't.

You keep mistaking attacking others with the ability to defend. The state has the moral and legal right in most peoples minds to attack anyone it likes for any reason it fancies. This has ****** all to do with land ownership, though land ownership is one of the things the statists will happily stove your head in about.

Your bugbear is a symptom of a larger problem and cannot be fixed without adressing it.

I have to say I have more sympathy for your views than I once did. I no longer think libertarianism is generally a tenable position because libertarians in general seem to object to coercion in principle but then proceed to justify coercion in the cases that they judge it necessary to avoid or correct what they themselves perceive as injustice. Categorically I can see that even the provision of law enforcement to safeguard property rights yet paid for out of coercive taxation is no different than the case to redistribute income via taxation that socialists justify the use of coercion to achieve. Both justify the use of coercion and state intervention to correct what they perceive as injustice and as such there is really no moral difference between the two positions, just a difference of opinion on what constitutes injustice.

Not sure where that leaves me as I still dont see your ideas as workable but it's an interesting discussion.

[Injin]

I have to say I have more sympathy for your views than I once did. I no longer think libertarianism is generally a tenable position because libertarians in general seem to object to coercion in principle but then proceed to justify coercion in the cases that they judge it necessary to avoid or correct what they themselves perceive as injustice. Categorically I can see that even the provision of law enforcement to safeguard property rights yet paid for out of coercive taxation is no different than the case to redistribute income via taxation that socialists justify the use of coercion to achieve. Both justify the use of coercion and state intervention to correct what they perceive as injustice and as such there is really no moral difference between the two positions, just a difference of opinion on what constitutes injustice.

Not sure where that leaves me as I still dont see your ideas as workable but it's an interesting discussion.

I agree - they aren't currently workable.

I see the barrier as psychology though, not logic. To have people (for example) clambering all over "your" stuff is extremely anxiety causing - even though there is a logical path that says as long as they don't damage anything wheres the harm?

I generally think that free marketeers and libertarians have a much higher threshold for interpersonal anxiety than is the norm.

(And that I am completely insane, obviously. )

[bill still]

Nonsense.

We have stopped it before -- 6 times in US history.

Injin, are you taking a subsidy from BoE?

You cannot stop fractional reserve banking.

[Stars]

No I don't.

You keep mistaking attacking others with the ability to defend.

Nope -

I am quite clear that land ownership is a special right to attack others

I am also quite clear that the state is also special right to attack others

It is you that keeps getting one of these a bit 'confused' with property

Edited September 10, 2009 by Stars