subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
Robert Knowles wrote:

As far as I can see the main doubts cited in your link is
the "intercessory" or distant prayer effects on recovery.
However there is no reason to conclude that the other
aspects are ineffective - particularly the placebo effect
to which the detractors actually attribute any percieved
pain relief. I hate to introduce the phrase "common sense"
in the same paragraph as study, but it does make sense that
people gathering together and sharing happiness especially
with regard to allaying the fears of death etc. would make
people happy and spur a positive endorfin response.

Except that the CCP is afraid to permit religious freedom
to any real degree because they don't wish to be "cut out
of the loop" so to speak.  It is true though that once a
set of values are proposed as those highlighted in a book
like the bible, that citizens are likely to see just how
truly corrupt the CCP is.


author: Harbinger

subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
Any form of traditional Qigong is beneficial to health. Qigong existed
thousands of year before Falungong was heard of. It is quite obvious that
health exercise is the Trojan horse Li-Hung-Tsi use to further his
diabolical plan of intoxicating the minds of people.

"scott_in_CT" <[email]> wrote in message
news:mgx19.13478$[email]...
are
test?
they're
of
as


author: Jim Walsh

subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:20:02 +0800, scott_in_CT wrote:

Well, no. Most theories start anecdotally and then are proven wrong.

And, you? You would prefer that measurements were done carelessly? How
odd.

Love, Jim

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeed.com       The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----


subject: Re: Lunyu (Forward of Zhuan Falun- main text of Falun Gong)

text:
"Jim Walsh" wrote...

Preachin' to the choir, Jim.  Tell this to Robert Knowles.  :^D


author: Robert Knowles

subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
"1_Han_To_Bush" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

Yeah...  Isn't that an interesting result?  Prayer only "works"
if you're in the same room with the patient.  It makes me
wonder if perhaps just hanging out with a sick person
might make them better, too.

And, of course, it just begs the question "Where was God"
when those people were praying from a distance?  Was he
not listening, or are there limits on his power?  I know that
people regularly pray from a distance when people are ill.

Maybe that part of the study should be circulated during
church services when people are asked to pray for someone
in the hospital.  Seems they had better pay a visit if they want
that prayer to work.

O.K., but do the headlines scream "Prayer effective
as Placebo"?  Nope.  That's probably the end result, but
it's not sensational enough and doesn't pander to the beliefs
of the masses.  Instead, you get headlines like "Prescription:
Prayer" and articles that imply prayer is medically effective.

Right, which means that it might not be "prayer" at all which
made the difference in their recovery.  If so, then those who
believe in "prayer" might want to know that "God" only
answers them if you're physically close to the people you
are praying for and not waste their time praying for the
sick in church.

I agree that the study didn't control for other forms of
activity similar to their prayer such as simply gathering
together and sharing happiness or just talking to the
patient.  So the study seems terribly flawed to me, but
the headlines are still there, touting the effectiveness of
"prayer".

And those "results" will be used with other half-baked
results to give gullible readers the general impression
that "there's something to" prayer, after all, when, in
fact, it may be no better than a placebo or just having
a bunch of friends sitting around chatting.

Well, that gets into an entirely different topic.  I don't
consider the Bible a paragon of virtue or a shining
model to measure corruption against.

Most people just pick and choose the good stuff and
don't read or focus on the really sick parts.

There is enough gratuitous violence and perversion in the
Bible to write a book about.  Many have.  You might want
to look for such titles as "The X-Rated Bible" for examples.


subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
I think Mao already did that 50+ years ago....

"Harbinger" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ai67oh$l25$[email]...
diseases,
as


author: Mahakala

subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
"Harbinger" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ai67oh$l25$[email]...

Oh, behave.

diseases,
as


subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
"Jim Walsh" wrote...

There is nothing I wrote above that implies that I think this.  In fact, I
do not.  I only mentioned it to say that 1) such a study exists, but that 2)
it won't be supported by any western scientist.

I mentioned it in support of your assertion that a western scientific study
be conducted on Falun Gong practitioners.

Scott


text:
"scott_in_CT" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bFl%8.246114$[email]...

The corollary to that is "the existence of measurement problems
is NOT evidence that everything imaginable exists".

Measurement problems are not an excuse to "believe" that
anything and everything is therefore automatically true.

(Besides, I and most people have no problem measuring
whether people can fly or not.  Give it a shot, will ya? )


text:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:29:11 +0800, scott_in_CT wrote:

Well, no. You are not in my choir. You believe in the existence of things
which can not be measured. That is NOT what I said. I said that
measurement of "love" was difficult, not very accurate, subject to
argument.

That is NOTHING like saying that things which cannot be measured are
nevertheless real. For example, ghosts don't exist. Period.

Love, Jim

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeed.com       The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----


subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
Robert Knowles wrote:

I see where you're going with this. It sure sounds
like the kind of dull attitude typical of a CCP
supporter. Luckily, not everyone is confined to the
same dogmatic inclinations that plague the CCP.
With such micromanagement of "the official way" or
"this is a subversive way", generally it becomes extremely
difficult if not near impossible to make the kind of
advances that only a creative and permissive environment
can spur.  In contrast, bright people can end up merely
copying off of the work of other cultures leaving the
breakthroughs to others.

There WAS a difference recorded, it's just that the critics
have expressed doubt as to the study design and therefore
the statistical signifigance of those results. Anyway,
I don't care to get trapped into some kind of "proof of
religion" argument with you. I merely maintain that only
an oppressive bully like the CCP and its supporters
will certify themselves as qualified to dictate matters
of spirituality, and for that matter so many other things.
Such a practice is bound to be repayed by all kinds of
manifestations of a repressed population.  And if you
think FLG is a challenge, there's probably 100 more such
phenomena waiting to repay the CCP.

Don't be ridiculous, the placebo effect only works when
it's not called as such. I can see that you probably go
around telling young children that there's no such thing
as Santa Claus right?

This is quite drone-like talking about "waste of time"
etc. when it comes to the more aesthetic aspects of life.
Imposing of efficiency on every aspect of existence is
a concept applicable to robots not complex people, whose
psyche the CCP acknowledges little when issues these robotic
"edicts" of efficiency. Efficiency may be good at work under
certain cases, but not in peoples' personal lives.  Are you
an "efficient" robot? I have seen some people who are slaves
to efficiency in their personal lives, and over all they
make for boring, uncreative, and stifling company.

Well I agree that simple "prayer" won't likely do much
for those who's organ were harvested from a PRC prison,
but then again nothing is perfect.

Placebo effect is quite powerful. But even that seems to
annoy CCP supporters probably because it emphasizes group
cohesiveness or something when many supporters get together
to "pray" as you like to demonize with your quotes, and more
focuses on human caring an area which the CCP seems sorely
lacking. It certainly doesn't hurt anyone to "pray" as long
as the recipients continue to take their medicines etc.

Duh, notice I used the word "highlighted" to indicate
that there are good concepts in there, but not absolutes.
If you're looking for absolutes then why on earth are you
sticking by that band of thugs whose "bible" of dogma called
socialism has more tragic stories than even the bible itself!
If you go by the likes of Liu, LT Lee and friends, the
very word Communist is a lie, since they claim to not be
communist anymore.

As for CCP it's hard not to focus on the "really sick"
parts. Talk about the follies of faith!

It would be tamer than a documentary of the actual evil
deeds committed by the CCP.


subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
What Mao did then did not alter the fact that Falungong tries to manipulte
people's mind with psuedo-science.

"scott_in_CT" <[email]> wrote in message
news:fCy19.14339$[email]...
that
disease)
all
But,
scientific
possible
drastically,


subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:54:41 +0800, scott_in_CT wrote:

Since the "study" lacks "scientific controls" it is NOT a study.

I do NOT think that FLG practitioners should conduct a "western scientific
study". I think that scientists should do so.

The use of the word "claim" in "of course, western science establishment
will claim that strict scientific controls aren't done in China, etc,
etc." suggests that you think such controls are not necessary or that the
"western science establishment" is biased against FLG in particular or
China in general.

Love, Jim

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeed.com       The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----


text:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:35:44 +0800, Robert Knowles wrote:

Agree.

Love, Jim

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeed.com       The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----


text:
"Jim Walsh" wrote...

Hmmm, you have contradicted yourself into a circle, that I really don't feel
like untangling.

Goodnight.

Scott


subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
"1_Han_2_Bush" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...
news:[email]...

What?

Coming up with alternative scenarios, or eliminating
variables that weren't accounted for in an experiment
is "dogmatic"?  That's what every decent scientist is
expecteed to do with an experiment.

I think it is more "dogmatic" to ignore those possibilities
and stick with the party line that the experiment was a
grand success for the effectiveness of prayer.

Well, you can have "creative" breakthroughs which are
totally bogus like Cold Fusion.  That's when the "dull"
attitude behind the scientific method comes in handy.

Yes, it is unfortunate that people have to test and
verify their wild and crazy ideas against the real
world, but it is and has been an accepted part of
our scientific progress for some time now.

Sorry if you think it's dull.  I don't.

Well, that attitude isn't entirely restricted to the CCP and
its supporters.  It's interesting to me that no one sees the
same tendency in Li Hongzhi.  He is not only content to
"dictate" spirituality, but even "dictates" whether David
Copperfield is telling the truth about his flying abilities.

The only real difference is that he doesn't have an army
just yet.

Well, as with all religions, the one with the most believers
will ultimately win through superior force.

I know about placebos.  And saying that something is just
as effective as a placebo isn't saying much, is it?

And, at some point, children do learn that Santa Claus
isn't real.

And hundreds of millions never experience that
"disappointment" because they were never told
that Santa Claus was real in the first place.

Fine, but these studies are about the medical effect of prayers
(not their aesthetics) and they appear in medical journals.  If it
is meant to be a "fluff" piece, then they should just print it in
the National Enquirer or Readers Digest where that's expected
and where people are just a bit reluctant to quote them as
evidence.

Talk about the aesthetics of prayer and religion all you wish
and it is not  the same as making a medical claim about them.

Now, wait.  These people make claims about the impact of
their religion and beliefs on the real world.  Are they never
to be challenged and always accepted as true?

I know that's what they want, but why should they get it?

If they don't want their prayer studies criticized, they should
not publish them in peer-reviewed journals.  And the people
who dare to offer criticism shouldn't be criticized just for
doing so, as being dull, or over-efficient,or whatever, if
their criticism is valid.

That's just name-calling and irrelevant to the claims.

Sorry, never met anyone like that.  Most people I've
met have something interesting about them.

It doesn't do much for Jewish shoppers who encounter
Islamic terrorists strapped with dynamite, either.

Oh well, I guess we have millions of similar examples, but
you can't prove a negative without exhausting every little
possibility, so we're stuck with providing evidence "for"
the claim, not against it.

No, and it doesn't hurt them to sing pop songs,  either.

But that doesn't make for very good religious propaganda.

Oh, just because I stick by them on a few issues or parts
of a few issues, I totally agree with them?

The world is not entirely black and white, but it's funny
to me that people always want to push you completely
in one camp or the other.

I guess it's just easier to deal with people once you've
labeled them.  Even if that label is inaccurate.

If you wish to put me in a box, label that box "skeptic",
not communist, not socialist, not fascist, not whatever
the hell rings your bell as the enemy of the world at
the moment.

And, if you think that ridiculing the CCP means much to
me, dream on.  I'm aware of politicial folly as well and
hold politics and religion to be roughly equal.

As far as I know, they are the only two realms in which
people are actually expected, if not required, to lie as a
regular course of events.

So?  Does one justify the other?

Why do so many people only see choices in terms of one
lie vs. another lie?  Whoever's lie has the biggest army or
the largest number of "believers" wins.  And, in the mean
while, any lie for your side is good and acceptable, while
the lies for the other side are bad and unacceptable.

Both religion and politics work that way.

Unfortunately, the end result can only be violence.


subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
Robert Knowles wrote:

Knowles, you've got me all wrong. I'm OK with studies and
wherever the results lead.  Regardless, it still seems that
you've not made a case for the CCP in its justification
to limit or ban religion. You won't get me in a religious
defense argument because I too dislike others trying to
"convert" me etc. But I DO believe that they should be
free to say what they want as long as no one gets physically
hurt by stopping medicine rigimens or whatever.

You misunderstand/misportray what i say.  As i said
i'm fine with the scientific method and all. I was referring
to the general nature of CCP restrictions and the
environment it creates which in turn stifles
creativity. I also dislike the idea that religion
must be subject to "proof" for all its aspects.
There are plenty of things that people accept
without "proof" and it serves them well.

For instance, to the delight of cigarette companies,
"proof" was never available to consumers about the
perils of smoking for many decades.  But there were
definitely people who "believed" smoking was bad
despite all the assurance to the contrary.  Similarly
the lead industry was proclaiming how there was
no problem with lead being in these products which
were causing child development problems.  It was
finally shown that since the banning of lead in
many products, the average IQ of lead-free children
increased significantly.

So that is the fear of the CCP, right?

Christians were famous for their "passive" protesting
against the Romans.  I'll admit that there were later
many "hijackings" of the religion but that still doesn't
negate the peaceful protestors or as some would say
"true" believers.

I once had a school principle like this.  He said
because a child watches Star Trek, that that child
was living in a fantasy world. Actually Star Trek or
other such programs are very positive in the sense that
they explore possibilities and teach valuable lessons
about the universality of humanity.  Btw, much of
that "fantasy" in Star Trek has been realized into
reality. Thank goodness the scientists responsible
for these breakthroughs weren't prevented from exploring
their fields on the grounds that it was all "fantasy" nonsense.

I cited this study simply to show that even for those
such as you, who must have "proof" that religion hasn't
been be proven "worthless" as you imply.  I further assert
that the suppression of religion is an offense to the
aesthetic qualities of people's lives.  And this indeed
can be very problematic.  I believe that CCP has really
killed many of its creative talents.  Just look at the
many mainland students who arrive in the US who can memorize
any math formulae around, and yet to a large extent they
don't seem to be strong in the "creative thinking."
Why? I believe that it stems from the basic way they were
taught.  "Memorize, don't ask why" "Socialism is good, don't
ask why," etc. Memorizing in this way is a very impressive
trait in a mathematician, scientist etc, but it can stop
short of cutting edge breakthrough thinking.

I see you're taking this to its logical extreme, which
I never meant it to be.  Always and never are difficult
concepts for me to support. I would say that CCP too
is extreme in its suppression of religion.  According
to your arguments it seems that religion should not
be practiced at all if it cannot be "proven" whatever
that means.

"They" should be free to practice their religion as long
as there is no harm such as human sacrafices etc.

I wholeheartedly support the right of people to criticize
religion as much as they want, provided it doesn't infringe
on others rights to practice their religion.  I criticize it
all the time much to the dismay of family members who have
me designated as one destined for "eternal damnation." :)

The word "overall" i believe leaves room for what you
just said.

And yet it hasn't prevented anyone from praying that
these tragedies will come to an end. And it's a good thing too.

I'll bet that if there was even a national karaoke group
with a million members and they were to sing a "subversive"
song all bets are off right?

Well computers suffer from this kind of 0 or 1 problem too.
Always lacking in precision of one kind or another. But
categorizations are fine as long as they give one an idea
of important concepts and trends, and that their limitations
are known.  I believe that even the most steadfast CCP supporters
and I would get along just fine at a dinner party. Heck I even
get along at those Christian parties where everyone has designated
me as hellbound.

Even president Kennedy may have commented that the Kremlin
has "good men."  That's good enough for me.

Skepticism is fine.  For me, being skeptical is just a
personal thing.  Obviously skeptics have a needed role
in life's endeavors.  I'm also glad that those skeptics
don't have absolute authority over my life as CCP has
power over its citizens.  For that matter I'm also glad
that the Pope isn't president of the US too.

We may largely agree that deception is par for the coarse
in politics. As for religion, except for religion "hijackers"
I might be a bit more charitable.  At worst, disregarding
the hijackers, one may say misguided or mistaken, and
at best who knows.

Well I believe that most churches emphasize the "good"
stories of the bible. This book like it or not, does
have some good basic tenets to live by as long as the
book isn't being shoved down my throat against my will
I'm fine with the book. As for drinking the blood of
Christ and all that... well that's not my bag either,
as it seems rather morbid.  But it doesn't hurt anyone.
All this stuff may make one's mortality a little more
bearable. That's good.

The dilemma is how do group ideas get expressed that can
reflect each and every member's view?  To my understanding
there are as many views as there are people, but at the
end of the day the very existence of a group entails
tensions from the contradictions of its members.  But
overall some groups offer a better "solution" or serve
needs better than others.  That's the best I can figure
for now.

Well this is rather pessimistic, I guess if taken in
the context of the CCP and its group dynamics that's
understandable. I maintain that groups can be and are
beneficial. I like the idea of plurality of groups
so that choice is available and so is competition
in the marketplace of ideas. When groups war against
each other then one can say that "communication has
sunk to the lowest level." But I would lable this as
the case all the time.


subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
"1_Han_2_Bush" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...
news:[email]...

Congrats on wading through all this stuff. You have made many good and
rational points (which will probably upset RK). I wanted to comment on the
bit about drinking the blood of Christ. The major *Christian* denominations
that believe in transubstantian (sp?) bother me, to say the least. They miss
the symbolism, which is all it is. When I hold up a picture of my kids and
say, 'These are my kids', anyone with a grain of sense knows that they are
not 5 x 7 inches tall and cut off at the waist. The picture is a
representation. If the words of Jesus are all taken to literal extremes, he
is a lot of things, including a tree or a vine.

I know you didn't ask. Just thought you might be interested. Or not.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled debate.


subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
"1_Han_2_Bush" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

[sorry, this is just getting a big long, so not a complete response]

I see them as two sides of the same coin.  As far
as I am concerned, both are unprovable religions.

The problem is that no one can agree on a method
for determining "truth" of religion aside from force,
so to resolve differences religions will ultimately
fight, unless held in check by a stronger force.

I see CCP vs. Falun Gong as not being different
from an Islam vs. Christianity conflict.

The tenets of Falun Gong seem to conflict with
the tenets of the CCP.  So they will fight.  That's
just the way religions behave.

Well, the interestiing thing about "proof" is that it is
a nice, neutral way to resolve differences.  That's
why we don't have as many "religious" wars over
science.  People have agreed on a way to resolve
their differences (not just "tolerate" differences, as
in religion).

In religion, on the other hand, there is no way to
resolve differences.  It is absolute vs. absolute
which often contradict.  People may promote
"tolerance", but at some point, believers will
wonder why they must "tolerate" the hell-bound
vermin who don't believe the same way they
do, so they fight.  It happens all the time.

Right. And now, it is much easier to get things like
smoking in public banned since it has been proven
to be harmful.

Before that, it was just opinion vs. opinion and the
majority opinion ruled (which was to keep smoking
in public), even though it was the most harmful.

I don't know that for a fact.

But if they are pretty much what I think they are (i.e., a
competing religion), then they would be very concerned
about that because they know the history of religion and
they know that conflict with a religion cannot be resolved
rationally.

Ultimately, Christians did take up arms to spread their
religion, just as many other believers have done.

I don't know what a "true" believer is because that seems
to change with the times.  I'm sure many Crusaders considered
themselves "true" believers, though, just as many terrorists
consider themselves "true" Muslims.

I wouldn't say that unless the person believed that
Star Trek was real, but could not offer proof that
it was real.

You can benefit from the stories in Star Trek without
thinking that there actually is or ever will be a Captain
Kirk or Mr. Spock or Vulcans or Klingons.

There is nothing wrong with fiction, in and of itself.

And a lot of scientists contribute to science fiction
literature.  But they know the difference, as do
most of their readers.

It's just when it is presented as fact that I have a
problem.

Well, nothing I have proposed would have stopped them,
either.  Nothing wrong with turning fantasy or fiction into
reality.  Provided you really did it and don't just say you
did it and expect everyone to believe you.

What I would have stopped, for example, is a business
selling a Star Trek replicator that "really, really" worked
to a bunch of brainwashed Trekkies when they could not
provide proof that it worked.

But I see that as no different from consumer protection
laws we currently have.

Well, that could be.

Sure, but some of them are creative.  It's just that they
don't always have the language skills to express it in
a way that foreigners understand.  I don't think they
lack creativity.

Actually, memorization is not nearly as impressive in a
mathematician or scientist as creativity.  The difference
is having the math/science ability to back up the creativity.

I don't know that praying has ever stopped a religious
war, so I don't see it as a good thing.  I see it as
neutral or even avoiding the problem.

(Perhaps from the perspective of the CCP, but I wouldn't
say so. )

I'm simply recognizing that adding harmless activities to
whatever the cure may be doesn't make any difference
in resolving medical problems.

If the solution is to take two aspirin and call the doctor
in the morning then prayer won't hurt.  But neither will
belching, or touching your nose, or any of a number of
generally harmless activities.

But so what?  Their claim is not that prayer is a harmless
activity.  They say it helps and that's an entirely different
story.

The problem, though, is that many religions also contain
some pretty despicable teachings.  And the believers will
not remove those.  They are there like a loaded gun ready
to be used when needed.

I see it as a manipulative technique where you get people
hooked on following the book based on its "good" and
then change the emphasis when you need to turn up the
violence (or whatever).


author: Eric Chang ~{VY;T~}

subject: Re: What is Falungong.

text:
What do you mean by "proof" or "truth" when discussing moral matters,
or matters of beauty, justice, love, etc.?

Eric

In soc.culture.china Robert Knowles <[email]> wrote:

...

...

...

For some, there is no need to argue because they have seen
it themselves.

Eric


author: George Orwell

subject: NIMA HAZINI, AKA "EL CRETINO" Wahdat

text:
The word on the street is Nima Hazini is just a "cretin"

Playing with "Wahid and Co." - Now I know he IS indeed CRAZY:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/33f21863f5ec6b06#

He thinks i am Mansour Khayyam then he switches and confused, he says I am "Erin Arieh", then God knows WHAT?

Nima, you have made a fool of yourself in front of everybody and this can't go forever. You need to see a psychiatrist.

In Iran they would hang you for treason. In America they would kick you out. Oh!, they did already?

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente   |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore   |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni      |For more info
                  https://www.mixmaster.it


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: NIMA HAZINI, AKA "EL CRETINO" Wahdat

text:
On Jan 5, 9:39 pm, George Orwell <[email]> wrote:

I'd give it a rest now, dear. Take a break and let the gravity (ha!)
of your accusations sink in.  Right now, you seem more like a friend
lending weight to Wahid's case (through misjudged tactics,
admittedly), than you do a person trying to destroy it. I don't know
how much of a mental strategist you perceive yourself as, but I'd go
back to the drawing board and have a think about how you play the
game.


author: Sock-Puppet'ullah

subject: EDWIN ARIEH = BORKED PSEUDO-MAIL/NOMEN NESCIO

text:
On Jan 5, 9:39 pm, George Orwell <[email]> wrote:

I don't believe you are Mansour Khayyam (but you said YOU ARE Mansour
Khayyam), since Mansour Khayyam is a bedridden 80-something year old
man who doesn't know how to get online; that is, according to his
relatives. But undoubtedly you are the same persona behind the Edwin
Arieh alias of 2006 who threatened me and then offered me a seven
figure bribe for my silence and then went writing glowing reviews of
Starr Saffa's ran on amazon.com. You are a hack of the bahaim
administration in Haifa, Israel, no doubt about it, and therefore by
implication an operative of Israeli intelligence.

W

Subjet: Greetings
Date: Monday, 30 January, 2006 9:39 AM
From: "Edwin ARIEH" <[email]>
To: [email]

Look, I can personally see to it that you are rewared significantly
if
you would stop the the expose against the Baha'i Administration.  I
am
in contact with a number of people who can make it worth your while
if
you ( and your "contacts") would merely quit this attack on the
Baha'i
administration.....we are talking seven figures.

We, of course, mean you no harm. You have the right to say whatever
you want. I assume, however, that all this fighting is getting
tiresome for you, am I right?


subject: Income from a tax on land.

text:
The most basic fact: what is the price of the land of the USA?

Indiana cropland costs about $2000 an acre.  Forest may be from $10 to
$350 an acre.  Rangeland maybe $100 an acre.  Pasture about $500.

cropland	420 million acres * $2000  = $800 billion
rangeland	400 million * $100         =  $40 billion
forest		390 million * $100         = $40 billion
pasture 	130 million  * $500  	   = $65 billion
Total undeveloped land                     = $One trillion.

Rent of an acre of Indiana cropland is $90, which is 4.5% of $2000.
So if all undeveloped land in the US became public the rent could be
$45 billion a year.  A more moderate plan of private title and a 1%
land tax would bring in $10 billion.

Developed land is the joker in the deck.  There are 80 million acres of
that.   The four borough NY generates about $7.7 billion in property
tax.   This is 15 million people, most of them not very well off.  So
we can guess that all property tax for the urban US is about ten times
that which would be $77 billion. I would guess the total price of
developed land would be about $8 trillion, or $100,000 an acre.

So the total value of land in the USA is about $9 trillion.  _The
Economist_ recently valued the total property of the UK at the same
amount so that seems about right.

Income from a federal land value tax of 1% would be roughly $90
billion.


author: Igor

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

Which is:

a. much less than current taxes
b. a flawed number because a tax on land would reduce market prices and
a tax on market rents reduces market rents.

Economic rents are not market rents.

Taxing improvements gives disincentive to improve land. The land tax on
unimproved land is efficient because it can not be avoided so it does
not affect decisions. It would be similar to taxing every land owner $X,
the only way to avoid the tax is to sell the land. This is a short run
argument. It must be noted that such a tax WOULD cause marginal firms
those barely making profit to exit in the long run as there profits
became zero or below. I do not know how many firms this would affect but
someone barely making now would go under if fixed cost increase too
much. On the other hand, if SS taxes were eliminated then they would not
have to match employees contributions. I am not sure if only a land tax
would cover current federal budgets. I would love to think implementing
this would reduce the size of government but history shows governments
would just impose other taxes to make up the difference.

Again TAXES AFFECT MARKET PRICES. It is seriously flawed to think adding
a tax will not change prices and therefore yield %X * current market value.


author: Paul A Thomas

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
<[email]> wrote

Then individual property ownership rights would get trampled.  Welcome the
communists.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On 14 Dec 2004 01:53:23 -0800, [email] wrote:

That is not a good measure of land rent, because as the NPV equation
says, price is inversely related to the discount rate as well as the
tax rate.  In fact, the NPV shows the simplified sum of a larger
expression, which implies that when the economic growth rate is
greater than the sum of the tax rate and the discount rate, present
land value diverges (i.e., becomes infinite).

Typical property taxes in most US jurisdictions are close to 1%/yr
based on actual market values.

Well, not surprisingly, any land that yields significant rent is
pretty likely to be developed.

$500/person is significantly below the national average, and NYC taxes
land value at about half the rate on improvements.

Do you really think that the total value of all developed land in the
USA is less than $30K/person???  That doesn't even cover residential
land value, let alone commercial, industrial, etc.  $100K/acre is
incredibly cheap, even for residential land in the 'burbs.  $15K for a
typical building lot??  ROTFL!!  And commercial land is worth far more
per acre than residential.

No, it is at least $20T, and probably more like $30T.  Even just
calculating the land value of a typical residence and multiplying by
the number of households would tell you that.

???  All the land in the UK is worth the same amount as all the land
in the USA??  ROTFL!!

Nope.  At least $200G, and more like $300G.

Rather than concocting a bunch of phony numbers, it's easier to get a
handle on total land rent by just noting that in modern, urban,
industrialized countries, it is about 20% of GDP.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Paul A Thomas wrote:
water,
an
about
like

Er, no. Noone will take it away from you. You will be simply charged a
resource rent fee for putting a fence around you and saying "This is
mine", when you haven't produced a single item of it.

A person is entitled to the full product of their labour. Nothing less,
and certainly nothing more.

Regards,

Lev


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:
<[email]>
rents,
advocates
Libertarian?"
the

It is not an argument of ownership, it's argument of (a) possession
rates and (b) access to proceeds.

On a philosophical principled level all have equal right to natural
resources, as Locke pointed out.

However, for pragmatic reasons, individuals or organisations possess
and are responsible for land (I have a great deal of sympathy for
"public ownership", but the "tragedy of the commons does apply).

Therefore, the _proceeds_ of land need to be shared equally.
Regards,

Lev


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Zach wrote:
news:[email]...
Purchase or

Which is merely the exchange of one's labour for another's labour.

create
my

As above.

anything

Who made that land orginally? Whose labour have your exchanged?

I

If you look at your deed you'll find, your "property" comes with a
caveat of conditions.

Regards,

Lev


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:

<[email]>

Note your .sig

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

The reverse is true as well. "The individuals who rob others by holding
a product not of their effort is a mob held together by
institutionalized gang rule" (Lev Lafayette)

Regards,

Lev


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:
holding

Not at all true, as the example we are trying to display to you shows.

Ownership is a legal construct which _derives_ from moral claims. The
two are not the same.

Now if one is  the legal owner of natural resources, which they have
not produced and have no moral claim to, then they are, in effect,
stealing from the labour of others.

It is not at all different to a form of slavery.

Even Adam Smith and David Ricardo realised this, hence their rather
blunt comments about landlords. They produce nothing, whilst they
extract monopoly profit.

Regards,

Lev


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:

Only pure services, and even then not because land is necessary factor
of production - even a pure service needs some natural resources to
stand on!

The factors of production are land, labour and capital. The latter two
are the products of human labour from which morally just claims of
ownership come from. The first is, as Locke pointed out, is not
something that arises from human labour, "a gift of Providence", and
therefore something which we have equal rights to its proceeds.
Regards,

Lev


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Zach wrote:
create
off the

In economic terms "land" means "all natural resources". So if the act
(like the Dutch) of expanding "land" in the conventional sense
increases both the aggregate supply of productive land.

exchanging

That's an exchange of labour the deeds of possession, not a just moral
claim to owership.

name) of
parties

I think you'll find that every parcel of land on the planet has been
subject to this procurement, indicating that there is no just moral
claim to ownership of land.

Of course, the pragmatic element of all this is

a) it doesn't change a thing about current possession claims and
b) it's the most efficient means of raising public finance and
c) it radically increases productivity.

Regards,

Lev


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Even if noone can claim ownership, all have a moral right to the
proceeds. That's the essense of Locke's statement on the matter.

The reason it's a form of slavery is because natural resources are a
necessity. To charge people an monopolistic admission fee for accessing
using these resources demands that they provide labour.

Consider, for example, what would happen if I owned all the water on
the planet. Every drop of it. (I know, there are pragmatic
difficulties, but this is merely a hypothetical).

Because it is a necessity of life, an inelastic good, and in fixed
supply _any_ price can be charged for it.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

?!?

Locke supported self-ownership, and clearly advocated that
self-ownership was a corporeal bodily right.

Yes, I agree. LVT argues for equal right to the proceeds. There are
obvious pragmatic difficulties to "equal right to possession", thus a
"user pays" system is far more practical.

I agree that may be debatable, but certainly the proposal has pragmatic
advantages especially for both social welfare (citizens dividend) and
taxation (resource rents). There is always an issue of
compliance/transaction costs. Personally, I think keeping these down to
"a little as possible" is the best thing to do.

Regards,

Lev


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:40:52 GMT, Igor <[email]>
wrote:

A 1% tax would not reduce them significantly.  And the rent is not
affected by the tax, only the value.  They are two different things.

That is irrelevant, because the current market rents are not
comparable to land rents under public ownership of land.

Right.  Kindly remember it.

Correct.  But taxing developed land does not mean taxing the
improvements.

Likewise a land tax on the unimproved value of improved land.

It would not be similar in the least.

Right.  Unproductive current landholders would, absent the privilege
of pocketing the publicly created rent of their land, be displaced by
more productive ones.

That is one of the great benefits of a free market economy: resources
move into the hands of those who will use them most productively.

History certainly shows that governments impose other taxes when they
_don't_ tax land....

A land tax changes land prices, but not land rents.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:19:21 -0500, "Paul A Thomas" <[email]>
wrote:

That is of course false.  Valid property rights rest on the foundation
of an act of production: the producer has a natural right to own his
product, because that product comes into existence already in his
hands.  That right is what communists deny.  But as land was never
produced by anyone, there is no valid private property right to land.
Property "rights" in land therefore do not rest on an act of
production, but can only ever rest on an act of apropriation.  As
such, all private property "rights" in land are just as validly
overturned by an act of appropriation.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:

Well, the alternative - and there doesn't seem to be any others -
claiming ownership and proceeds when there is no labour involved - is
clearly erroneous.

As I mentioned it was a hypothetical. If you like, one could, assuming
they had enough money, simply buy the entire surface of the globe.

Is that what you recommend for landowners? Does that satisfy Randian
moral reasoning?

Actually, I think you're merely pointing out what Douglas McArthur said
many years ago;

"No nation can avoid land reform. All it can do is determine the course
it will take: bloody revolution or taxation."

Regards,

Lev


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
"[email]" <[email]> writes:

Yes and it was premised on some inference that
we don't have the right to ourselves as we are
the property of God and so have a duty to preserve
our life--therefore we are granted the equal right
(as inference Locke makes) to nature by God.

The equal right to may or may not be a guarantee
of such possession. It's also not what the LVT
proponents are actally arguing.

The claim is that "the community" creates the rents earned
by land. That at least has some merit in the claim. That
the rents are created equally by all members of the community
is a much more difficult claim to establish so the claim of
some equal share by all is debatable.

jmh


author: Zach

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

No one can "make" land, unless they take heaps of fill and dump it off the
shoreline. If I work to earn money, and purchase property from someone who
originally settled the property and agrees to my price, we are exchanging
our labor by mutual agreement. That line of ownership continues
indefinitely, except by government seizure (procurement by its true name) of
the land. My only exception to this is when a party or group of parties
donates a portion of their land for public use.

Depends on the locale, really, and what people are and are not willing to
agree to. Again, the deed to the property may be a legal document, however
that does not mean it is ethically written or enforced. Many years ago, a
deed was to land as a title is to a modern-day car. It stated who legally
owned that parcel of land. It did not come with conditional provisions. The
land was unquestionably yours if you held the deed in your name.

The same is true today - a deed in its pure form is still the equivalent of
a title. However many lawyers found they could line their pockets by putting
conditional clauses and passing laws that created malum prohibitum (wrong
because we say so) constraints on the deed holder. Most of these lawyers
work for the government, either in the capacity of lawyers, legislators, or
judges. You still own the property, as long as you play by the rules others
set out for you.

What's becoming quite apparent to most 'landowners' today is that the laws
the government continues to pass make compliance a bit like playing the game
"Battleship" with a kid who keeps moving his ships. You're simply not gonna
win. You have to play by the rules, but they keep making it up as they go
along. If you mess up in the slightest or protest the game, you forfeit your
property and your freedom.

So, I both agree and disagree with your last statement. The conditional
provisions are there now, but they haven't always been. Hopefully the day
will come when they will again cease to exist.

BeachBum


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text: ever get the impression you're arguing with 8 year olds, Roy?


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
One idea I had that (in my limited reading)I haven't seen before would
be to work for a 50 or even 100 year transition period to roll in the
LVT regime.

Do you consider this technically practicable?

Politically, I expect its bad-faith opponents would still fear once the
Georgist camel got its nose in the tent the transition would be
accelerated to affect them sooner, so perhaps there would not be much
practical benefit to this approach.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
I meant technically, not politically.

At any rate, with all the silly radicalism eminating from DC these days
quite a bummer that we're not hearing anything about georgism, though
of course given the current give-away mood it's not surprising.

Then again the LVT seems more structured toward local governance rather
than national (at least on the continental scale of the US).

I marvel at how anyone could be libertarian and not be a
geolibertarian. As I say on blogs, support for the LVT separates the
men from the boys!

Since I'm more a lefty-libertarian (I equally distrust the open-loop
hereditary classism of minarchists blind faith in the free-market law
of the jungle)


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
(disregard previous)

I meant technically, not politically.

At any rate, with all the silly radicalism emanating from DC these days
quite a bummer that we're not hearing anything about georgism (though
of course given the current kleptocratic mood it's not surprising).

Then again the LVT seems more structured toward local governance rather
than national (at least on the continental scale of the US).

btw, I marvel at how anyone could (honestly) be libertarian and not be
a geolibertarian. As I say on blogs, support for the LVT separates the
men from the boys! ('course, most libertarians are really just
got-mine-fuck-you conservatives in camouflage).

Since I'm more a lefty-libertarian (I distrust the open-loop hereditary
classism of minarchists, the blind faith in the Invisible Hand of the
free-marketeers, and the implicit rejection of morality and/or efficacy
of representative government (as delineated in the preamble to the
constitution)) I feel geolibertarianism is the best 'pure', ideal
abstract target that democratic society should strive toward.

I guess it's possible that the next 4 years of national mismanagement
will set up conditions down the line where geolibertarian directions
will become attractive. Too bad everyone is just so stoopidly invested
in the game to not be able to see the bleedin' obvious.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
"[email]" <[email]> writes:

Locke never suggested that all have a moral right to
the proceeds of anything. They have a moral duty not
to damage the property of another, in the case of people
that other is God and our bodies and lives belong to
God. That moral duty not to harm God's property implies
that we must have an ability to avoid doing that harm,
hence the right to appropriate from nature (more of God's
property).

None of us have any moral right to take what another
created so what what are these proceeds that you're talking
about?

jmh


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] writes:

Apparently the original reply didn't make it.

Locke did not justify property rights on self-ownership.
His argument was based on labor. That means he's got
a problem: how does man appropriate from nature and
establish a property right that is consistent with
his labor theory of property when man did not create
nature? His solution was to apply the labor thoery of
property to man, make man's body the property of
God which the free-willed soul was trustee of and
then, based on the duty of the truste to maintain
the property of God, infer a right to appropriate
from nature and thus allow labor to establish a
property right.

I've not been arguing against the pragmatic potential of
the LVT apporach, merely the moral one.

jmh


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

 From an efficency stand point it is identical both taxes are
unavoidable and do not distort decisions.


author: Paul

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
<[email]> wrote

So I own raw undeveloped land, the government takes it (because you said
so), and my rights aren't being violated?

C'mon man!  Get real.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
<[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...
the

Property rights are not dependant on production of the property. Purchase or
trade are also means of acquiring property.

I buy a coffee cup. I now own said coffee cup. I do not have to create
anything from the coffee cup, nor must I create the coffee cup, for my
purchase to be validated as my property.

Similarly, I buy land. I now own said land. I do not have to create anything
for my purchase to be validated as my property.

If it is my property, it is mine alone. It does not belong to the
"community" or "society", and the government has no right to tax what I
rightfully own.

BeachBum


author: wjyoung

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

Would it follow that the sovereign (what ever its form: a king, the
people through some government) that could appropriate land might also
rule how an individual to whom it granted privileges could use the land
to produce real property?  I suppose zoning laws would be examples of
such a rule.  It would also be from here that building codes are
established.  It might even be that the sovereign could rule what crops
may be grown in the agricultural zones.

How does the notion of a "property tax" on undeveloped land, as
determined by its market value, fit with the notion that land can not be
owned?  Doesn't the notion of a market value imply that the land can be
sold?  I suppose that it is only the privilege to use the land, as
granted by the sovereign and that included terms for the transference of
that privilege, that is being sold and taxed.  Perhaps this would fit
with the notion of "(land) property taxes" resembling more of a rental
payment for the privilege of use than a property tax, accepting that the
land is not "owned" by the citizen and is not his property.

Perhaps "usage fee" would be a more apt description than "(land)
property tax", except that land held undeveloped is not really being
used.  Hmmm...maybe "land use license fee" or "exclusive land use
defense retainer".

When a person steps from the sidewalk produced by the sovereign onto the
concrete driveway produced by the individual, who has been granted
privileges by the sovereign to use the land for the purpose of
establishing a residence, from materials purchased in a commercial
exchange involving raw material or a combined product thereof, also
produced from land to which the party reciprocating in the exchange had
been granted such privileges, that individual, when demanding that the
person remove himself, would be invoking his right to determine the
disposition of his property, the concrete drive way.

How about undeveloped land?  If an individual produces a fence to mark
the boundaries of the land to which he has been granted privileges by
the sovereign, and yet does nothing to the physical land within that
boundary to change it from its form as it would exist absent human
production activities, what authority does the rancher have to demand
that a stranger found wandering within the fenced boundary remove
himself?  The wild growth on the land is not his property, is it?  And
the post-and-rail log fence was wide enough that the stranger did not
have to physically touch it to cross the line it drew, so the stranger
took no liberties there that might be redressed.

Perhaps the sovereign, when granting such privileges, ordains the
individual with the effectivity of being the "owner" of the land, though
with any of the kind of the aforementioned usage restrictions in effect
and while still retaining ultimate authority to revoke that privilege,
though still with the self-imposed requirement that compensation be
made.  If so, might the stranger who refused to commence with removing
himself on the demand of the privileged citizen be legally removed by
force (assuming for simplicity that it would be a sheriff who would do
so, not the rancher attempting a "citizen's arrest")?  With that it
would be the privilege of exclusive private authority over the land
granted by the sovereign that was being enforced, not the right of the
individual to his produced property.

Thus when the use privilege is revoked and the land reclaimed for public
use, it is the value of the property produced by the privileged citizen
and remaining on the land that must be compensated by the sovereign, not
the value of the land itself.  The individual does not own the land, and
thus need not be compensated for its value, neither present value (e.g.
holding his house) or future value (e.g. the yield of next year's crop).

Why should the regular fee that citizens pay for the exclusive usage
privilege of land be proportionate to its market value?  What of a fee
proportionate to the physical size of the land to which an individual
wishes to be granted the exclusive privileges of land ownership, perhaps
with a uniform rate being assigned for each zone?  Or a direct tax as
determined by dividing the cost of government by the population of its
subjects?  Or a local sales tax?

By the way, what was the sovereign over the West during the migration?
Whichever would claim it, I suppose.  And a war if more than one.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:

I marvel at how you fail to see how the LVT fulfillment of the Lockean
Proviso completes the moral foundation of the libertarian worldview.
While I believe democratic governance is a necessary check on total
liberty, IMV geolibertarian thought cuts to the quick of what I see as
anarchism/minarchism's fundamental flaw -- the open-loop dynamic of
wealth accumulation of a hereditary landed class parasitically living
off the labor of others.

This sig is highly ironic in this context. Here's my favorite sig
quote:

"To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who
stole
it." -- Lloyd George

I have yet to see any argument come close to addressing the cosmic
truth of this quip.


author: Dale Eastman

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

The execution of this hypothetical is of interest.

If the purchase of the entire globe took some finite, non
instantaneous amount of time, without perfection of secrecy, then at
some point the supply / demand thing would kick in.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On 18 Dec 2004 09:19:21 -0500, [email] wrote:

The argument gets to the same conclusion without God.  Equal rights
are meaningless without an equal right to use what nature provides.

But it is the natural response to those who claim that land rent must
not be recovered for public purposes because certain people have a
special right to pocket it for their own purposes.

Indeed, it is a fact beyond serious dispute.

IMO it is clear that rent is not created equally by all, but that
rather, the equal right of all to use the land can only be secured
through payment of the rent to the community, which then, as a result
of a democratic process, uses it in ways considered impartially
(though perhaps not equally) beneficial to all.  The equal right of
all to use natural resources does not, IMO, necessarily imply a right
of all individuals to equal personal shares of the rent -- unless,
perhaps, it is acknowledged that all owe equal payments to support the
societal mechanisms that administer the rent recovery system, secure
the users' tenure, etc.  IOW, that government must be paid for before
any rent is distributed equally among the people.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:49:44 GMT, "Zach" <[email]>
wrote:

That is not making land.  It is only piling fill on top of
pre-existing land, no different in principle from adding fill to soft,
swampy land.

No, you aren't.  His labor did not produce the land.  He is trading
something that he did _not_ produce for something that you _did_
produce.  He is getting something for nothing.  That means you are
getting nothing (i.e., a right you already had) for something.

No, it doesn't.  It stops at the first person who claimed to own what
he never produced.

Different from private seizure of the land only in that at least the
government is creating some of the land's value....

??  "Their" land??  Question begging noted.

No, it doesn't.  There is no land title issued anywhere in the world
that doesn't have conditions attached.  In almost all cases, one of
those conditions is that the property taxes be paid.

True.  Granting private interests title to land can hardly be called
ethical.

Flat false.  Your ignorance of this subject appears to be quite
comprehensive.  Please tell us exactly when and where such titles have
been issued.

Wrong.

Wrong.  The conditionality of land titles long antedates the existence
of the legal profession.

You only ever got the land in the first place by virtue of those
rules.

You obviously don't understand the "ground" rules...

Yes, they have.  That's where you are wrong.

They have always existed, because even primitive illiterates know that
land is not produced by labor, and therefore can never rightly be
unconditional property as the products of labor can.

IOW, you are just making stuff up.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On 23 Dec 2004 04:39:26 -0800, [email] wrote:

Eight-year-olds are not so practised at evasion, rationalization and
self-deception.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On 23 Dec 2004 17:26:16 -0800, [email] wrote:

No, because all it takes is one election loss, and the crooks will hit
the "Reset" button.  IMO a 10-year transition would be enough.  People
can get used to major changes -- especially for the better -- faster
than you think.  Look what they've done in Eastern Europe.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
The reader is free to judge assertions of fact and opinion. Roy tends
to back up his assertions with adequate logic and facts.

I find it highly entertaining in a puzzly sort of sense to jump into a
middle of an archived discussion and try to figure out who is the one
full of crap.

I like David Lloyd Jones' writing so when he and Roy go at it I really
can't determine who gets the better.

at any rate, apropos to the issue in question, here's Paine in his last
work, the pamphlet Agrarian Justice:

It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural,
cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common
property of the human race. In that state every man would have been
born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest
in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions,
vegetable and animal.

But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of
supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is
capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to
separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself,
upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose
from that parable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is
the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is
individual property.

Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community
ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the
land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund prod
in this plan is to issue.

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/agjst.html
Looks rather Georgist to this untrained observer...


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

of

I see another dynamic in play, too. Landowners encourage sprawl in eg.
open areas of the Central Valley and Riverside County, etc.

With current public policy of private capture of rising ground rents it
is advantageous for the owners to buy as large a parcel and build as
low a density of improvements as to cover costs, since the long-term
appreciation of land value has proven to be the best return for the
money.

"McDonald's CFO Harry J. Sonneborn introduces the company to the real
estate business by creating a subsidiary called the Franchise Realty
Corporation. Looking back on it decades later, Ray Kroc observes:
"Harry alone put in the policy that salvaged this company and made it a
big-leaguer. His idea is what made McDonald's rich.""

delicious

All we need is for the true capitalists in this country is to wake up
and break the chains of their slavery to the land monopolists.
The humor in the irony is side-splittiing.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On 24 Dec 2004 04:39:51 -0800, [email] wrote:

It's not that.  Factual discussion of land-related issues is the most
rigidly enforced taboo in politics, the media and academe.

That's only because of the constitutional ban on direct taxation
(inserted through an intense and well-funded campaign of lobbying and
bribery conducted by Alexander Hamilton on behalf of wealthy landed
interests, and over the strenuous objections of many of the country's
real founders, like Paine and Jefferson).

It separates the men from the tapeworms.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On 19 Dec 2004 11:46:52 -0500, [email] wrote:

What some would give for what none created.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On 20 Dec 2004 20:44:23 -0500, [email] wrote:

Well, I'm sure we'd be happy to dscuss the pragmatic issues, if the
opponents of LVT didn't always try to obscure its pragmatic advantages
by raising spurious moral objections.  If they choose to take the
battle to moral ground, we are going to engage and destroy them on
that ground.  Their choice.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:45:34 GMT, Igor <[email]>
wrote:

That is just flat false.  Taxing the land value results in people
holding only as much land as they can use productively.  Taxing every
landowner $X results in people either giving up all land if they can't
use it productively enough to pay the $X, or acquiring as much land as
as possible, in order to capture as much land rent as possible in
excess of the $X.

As usual, you are just flat wrong as a matter of objective fact.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:10:29 -0500, "Paul" <[email]> wrote:

No, because that is the only way to secure people's rights.

That's right, they aren't, because your land title is not a right at
all, but merely a government-granted privilege in the first place.
Yours is the same argument slave owners used to defend their right of
property in other human beings, and it is no more valid for land than
for slaves.  If a property "right" is not valid in the first place,
you cannot make it valid by question begging.  Loss of an unjust
privilege is not a violation of rights.  It only _feels_ like it to
the ones losing the privilege.

-- Roy L


author: sinister

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
"Paul" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Those who advocate the right of private owners to Ricardian land rents,
without returning comparable value to the community, are in effect advocates
of aristocracy.  See "Are you a Real Libertarian, or a Royal Libertarian?"
http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

First paragraph:   "We call ourselves the 'party of principle,' and we base
property rights on the principle that everyone is entitled to the fruits of
his labor. Land, however, is not the fruit of anyone's labor, and our system
of land tenure is based not on labor, but on decrees of privilege issued
from the state, called titles. In fact, the term 'real estate' is Middle
English (originally French) for 'royal state.' The 'title' to land is the
essence of the title of nobility, and the root of noble privilege."


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
"Zach" <[email]> wrote in message
news:553wd.140427$[email]...
news:[email]...
or
anything

Damn - no replies. I disappointed. No, really, I'm crushed.

BeachBum


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:42:09 GMT, "Zach" <[email]>
wrote:

But the transferred rights _rest_on_ the original right of the
producers to own (and dispose of, through trade) their products.

You buy it, directly or indirectly, from its producer.  Land had no
producer.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:34:09 -0700, wjyoung <[email]>
wrote:

That's the way it works in practice.  A king, though, is more or less
a private landowner who discharges some of the functions of
government.  Only a government controlled by the people can claim to
act for the people.

There is a market value attaching to the bundle of usage rights a user
acquires.  One purpose of a land tax is to ensure that he can't just
flip those rights to another user for a profit in the form of
capitalized rent, by recovering all of the rent for the community that
creates it.

No.  Consider the market value of a sublease on an apartment.

Right.

Sure.  It would probably be clearer to use the term "property tax" for
a tax on all property or personal wealth, not just real estate, and
use "real estate tax" to denote the current property tax.

Right.

If he has paid the community for use of the land, he has the same
rights as any tenant.

He has paid to use it as he will, as long as he doesn't destroy its
value with pollution, disturb the neighbors, etc.  That means he has
the right to keep others off it.  The primary idea of the land rent
payment is that it is paid for exclusivity, the right to prevent
others from using it, as well as the right to use it oneself.

Sure.

Yes.  Tenants have rights over non-tenant intruders.

Right.

Right.

That's the measure of the advantage or benefit that government and the
community confer on the user.

Does size matter?  ;^)  The advantage conferred by the services and
infrastructure government provides and the opportunities and amenities
the community provides are not proportional to area, but are
determined primarily by location, especially proximity to population.

That is effectively the same as a land tax, given that all have equal
rights to the land and thus to its rent.

Totally different, and totally wrong-headed.

Right.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
I've heard/learned  'open loop feedback' was equivalent to closed loop
positive feedback, but searching google only brings up a couple of
supporting uses of this, so apparently I was wrong.


author: The Trucker

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Dale Eastman wrote:

Please try to remember that it is enforcement that matters.  If I
"bought" the whole planet then I would have a contract with all
the previous owners.  But who would enforce the contract?  All
the people tell me to stick that deed where the sun don't shine
and they will use the land as we will. So it gets back to pure force,
not purchase.  We like to say that government enforces the
contracts (e.g. a deed).  It would seem that government actually
owns everything and the individuals in the society are sort of
temporary holders of certain things so long as they behave
themselves.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] writes:

Gets to the same conclusion but loses it's moral
force. Now we have to agree on a morality that
clearly not everyone is agreeing with.

Land rents--assuming we can actually trace them fairly
to everyone and not some subset--are different, as you've
said countless times yourself, from the land and ownership.
Locke's, and any other agument that leads to similar conclusions,
argument about our individual rights to individually appropriate
from nature had nothing to do with land rent.

But it's an imprecise propostion. You need to also
show that all the claim on those rents is uniform
thoguhout the community. Only at that point can you
claim to have solved the problem of rents being extracted.
The other aspect is what about people who are using the
land for non-productive uses and so not collecting any rent?
Where does the community gain the right to expell this
person from the land they've approrpriated, directly
or indirerectly (un which case they may have had to pay
a rent already) just beacuse they refuse to pay the
rent to the taxing authority. It they are not collecting
any rent they should not be required to pay any rents
even if the land is fully capible of generating those
rents.

While that's certainly one of the admirnable goals of the
approach I don't see how the goal is really accomplished
when those with more financial resources are allowed to
force another off their land merely beacause a rent
can be generated. This becomes more complecated when
we accept the imperfection of a democratic society and
the potential for agenda setting and rent-management.
We curently see people using the government to create
rents for industry and special interests. Changing
to Georgist approach would simply shift the application
of political power from rent-creation to rent-contol and
management as beneficial to special interestes.

There's also the whole problem that public spending
generally fails to be "considered impartially...
beneficial to all." Spending appears almost as
driven by special interest lobbying as regulation
and taxation are.

It might be that this works well, meaning improves over
the current situation. It might be that it works well in
some special settings, I think some have suggested a few
localities are currently using a LVT approach and the results
are good. It might be that is only works a in a local setting
but very poorly in a national or international setting.

jmh


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:
gives a
philosophy

Absolutely not. I am rule utilitarian, which AFAICT is just an ad-hoc
philosophy of take things as they come and adapt when necessary.

My POV is that the human condition is a duality between the social and
the sociopathic, and that only the rule of law, as determined by
democratic will in the Jeffersonian sense, is the ultimate guarantee of
liberty. However, this is a duality and one must endeavor to maintain a
balance and preventatively infringe on private liberty as minimally as
possible.

necessarily devolve into one-dollar one-vote systems, and I can't see
anything particularly libertarian in that.

Again, it's that damn Lockean Proviso, and JS Mill's position of the
harm principle of liberty. You have an absolute right to do as you will
until my equal rights are harmed thereby. This looks pretty piss-simple
to me and which is why I wonder why neolibs have such a problem with
it.

No, because it appears to be the most libertarian, freedom-preserving,
morally-consistent tax system imaginable.

cuz the anarchy of allodial tenure is the negation of my equal rights
to the commons.

Again, everthing flows from the Lockean Proviso.

I am, alone, too weak to enforce my natural rights, so I consent to
delegate my rights to a representative government, which theoretically
can handle it.

Note I think current federal spending is about an order of magnitude
too much.

socially
of

If it weren't for government we'd still be cleaning horseshit off of
unpaved streets.

that

yeah, I was just cut & pasting. The people here:

seem to know what they're talking about. The LVT aligns with my
worldview quite closely.

collection
the

You could be right about the inflationary thing. If anything, taking
money out of a community via eg. absentee landlords would dampen
overall spending and depress prices.

spinning
on
the

Dunno.

Social services and public infrastructure are more efficiently provided
as the population density increases.

If asphalt could vote this country would have a lot more
streetsweepers.

Wrong. I'm saying land development is all screwed up. Speculators are
limiting growth in some areas like eg. Valencia and Irvine while other
areas just sprawl in all directions since building cheap crap (like
McDonald's, parking lots, and public storage lockers) that adequately
cover the property taxes is an excellent long-term real investment
strategy.

As a utilitarian, I agree. Don't fix what ain't broken, and to really
screw things up requires a government.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
AFAIK there is no constitutional evidence for this which is why I
consider it a "religious" issue.

The opinions of the founding fathers count for squat (other than for
exemplary persuasive living logic), and at any rate the constitution we
have inherited should be and is a working framework not frozen in
amber.

In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, perhaps all the existing
land titles automagically converted from fee tenancy to allodial. This
does not remove the inherent inequity of the arrangement from the
geolib perspective, but would be of course neolib heaven.

In our constitutional system this is a state-level issue and not
federal per se, so as for all the legalisms what concerns me is what
California state law is.


author: robert j. kolker

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

That obligation can only come from the service the community provides in
the way of legal institutions and police functions. The alternative is
aloidal ownership with every freeholder being his own one-man army. That
is an expense too, so an aloidal landowner would still have to pay for
the privilege of ownership. One way or another we have to pay for what
we want or what we get.

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] writes:

You misunderstand my post. I didn't think Roy was just
making things up and wasn't really asking for evidence
here. I was responding to his unsubstantiated personal
attack that I was just making things up.

jmh


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

Only if you get the value tax right. YOU HAVE TO SET IT TO CAPTURE ALL
OR NEARLY ALL RENTS. If you set it below that level there is no
difference. A sufficient lump sum tax on land would do the same thing.

The point is neither changes decisions about HOW LAND IS DEVELOPED. It
does not distort capital and labor decisions. A value tax does distort
the land market and does have effects on demand for land. George just
argues that this distortion is a good thing because it distorts
speculation only. A lump sum tax does the same. You assumption is for
ONE TAX RATE only not all. You can set the lump sum to do the same
thing. Some remedial reading in the area of taxation is in order.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

You are flat out wrong here and George would disagree with you. So would
Ronald Coase. A deed is a BUNDLE OF RIGHTS. It gives you rights to use
the space and rights to ownership of WHATEVER resources are on or below
the land. It gives you EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to the use of the land and to
even some of the airspace above. Land ownership is a property right.

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. A LAND DEED DOES NOT SAY YOU OWN THE LAND IT
SAYS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT. Slavery said you owned the slave as a
PIECE OF CAPITAL.

  If a property "right" is not valid in the first place,

Of course is valid. Without PROPERTY RIGHTS THERE IS NO ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
Without property rights we are back to the state of nature. The only
thing I fear if I kill you for your production is that your family might
kill me. Property rights define the RIGHT TO TAKE AN ACTION. They bar
actions such as theft and blocking access to the market. Without
property rights you do not have an economic system. George has been
greatly misunderstood as socialist but speaking of communal property.
This is not communism as we know it today. George was advocating land
ownership as a bundle of property rights.

UNJUST BY WHOSE STANDARDS? Now you have left the area of economics and
gone into philosophy.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
"sinister" <[email]> wrote

My raw undeveloped land produces beautiful scenery, clean air and water,
abundant wildlife for hunting and fishing (food for the hungry), and an
educational opportunity for the local school children to learn more about
nature.  The property is used by school groups, boy scouts, hunters,
fisherman, naturists, bird watchers, and a host of others.  That raw
undeveloped land is INvaluable to the community, as there is no other like
it.

Yet, you want to take that away from me.

Simply amazing.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:32:39 GMT, "Zach" <[email]>
wrote:

Please read the newsgroup, and have a little patience.  Your
"arguments" were and are utter garbage, and have been duly demolished
by your moral and intellectual betters.  You now have an opportunity
to learn from them.  I predict that you will choose not to do so.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
<[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...
news:[email]...
or

Using your line of thinking, let's trace back my coffee cup example. I
bought the coffee cup at a retail establishment who purchased the coffee cup
from a distributor, who purchased it from a manufacturer. Now, follow this
closely: where did the manufacturer of my coffee cup get the raw material to
make it?

Yes, they (or their supplier) worked the land to get the clay to make my
coffee cup. Now, if said supplier does not own the land, rather the
"community" does, to whom go the profits for the production?

Way back when, two guys walked over a hill and saw two pieces of land they
both liked. One guy turns to the other and says, "Joe, I'd like the field on
the right, if that's alright by you." And Joe replied, "Sure, Sam, I kinda
like the hill and stream on the left." Both agreed to work the uninhabitated
land they found, each to their own benefit.

No one was harmed, no one was threatened, no one used any force, yet they
both have claimed that parcel of land as theirs. Later on they pass the land
to their children, who sell it to a developer for a new Super-Wal-Mart
location.

Now, who was forcibly removed from the land? Who stole what from whom?

If you claim that "All such purchases trace...to an act of forcible
appropriation", please provide a comprehensive reference of these siezures.
I'd like to see it.

I'm not claiming that wars have not been fought for land, that neighbors
haven't fueded, or that people weren't run off their land. But these are not
all-encompassing examples.

In short, if something is "appropriated" forcibly or otherwise, someone else
must have owned it previously. Where did the previous owner get it? Are you
arguing the "chicken & egg" theory of land rights? You're making broad
generalizations with no foundation, and willingly overlooking an obvious
flaw in your logic.

Law is the will of the tyrant, seldom representative of the right of the
individual.

Using my previous example, Person A finds uninhabited land, settles it,
works it, whatever. To say that his claim is invalidated for the rights of
society is ridiculous at the very least, and smacks of communisim. It is by
definition, his land. He, and no one else, put forth the effort to discover
it, mark it, build on it, and work it. He has every right to claim that land
is his and his alone. If some passerby wishes to fish in his pond, they must
ask his permission or continue over the next hill until they find a pond
that has not been claimed.

But let's just say you're right for the sake of my next example. Person A
now works the land that he thought was his, but is now claimed as land for
"society". He produces grain from it. But it must be ill-gotten grain,
because it is not his land, the land belongs to society. He worked the land,
but "society" owns it. Now, if society owns the land, and all rights to it,
the next logical question is who's grain is it? After all, the grain could
not be produced without using the land that society owns.

If your answer is "Society", congratulations. By your logic, Person A is now
a slave to society. His work does not benefit him, it benefits others who
have invested nothing towards the end result. You denounce slavery as a
violation of individual rights, yet your logic demonstrates that you wish
everyone to become a slave to "society".

Government taxing one's possessions is just another form of slavery. If I
own it, it is mine alone. If I refuse to pay a tax on my possessions, what
does the government do? Sieze said possessions. If that is the case, who
actually owns my possessions? The government. So, I work to earn my money,
to buy my possessions, which aren't really mine, but the government's. I am
working to benefit not myself, but a master. Slavery.

How then can a government be funded? A sales tax on transfers of property
between a self-declared business and its customers, although even that is a
bit extreme in my opinion. Excise / import taxes are more appropriate. Civil
matters of a certain minimum monetary value could pay a court fee, etc.

Yes, I realize that would reduce the government's revenue to almost nothing.
Fantastic! Perhaps the government would limit its involvement to mediating
disagreements between localities and other such trivial matters. Everything
else can easily be privately funded. Medical, police, fire, EMS, all
volunteer, pay-per-use, privately funded, or the individual could purchase
an insurance policy to cover such things.

Yes, even national defense can be privately funded. Between a decent militia
and war bonds, we'll still be the toughest kid on the block. However, we as
a nation would be far less inclined to be the neighborhood bully.

There are a thousand ways to pay for services that do not included the
robbery or enslavement of citizens.

LMAO! Name-calling! Outstanding. However, I will gladly answer what I
presume is your question. Yes, my political philosophy is decidedly
libertarian, and I have no use for a socialist perspective, outside of the
enjoyable distraction of a debate.

BeachBum


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

Is the market value of land use privilege not to be separated from the
market value of the choices made by the user, such as the choice to
build a nice home on the land, or the choice to leave the lot empty and
sell it to the highest bidder once the surrounding business is booming?

...and not market value...?

Should it not follow that government expenditure of those tax revenues
result in an equal benefit for all in the community?  Do not all members
of the community benefit equally from the existence of a police force
and judicial system?  Should it be that those who pay higher rent enjoy
nightly patrols of their neighborhoods by tax-funded police, whereas
those who pay lower rent should not?

Doesn't the holder of the privilege that would attract a higher market
price receive identical access to the services provided by the
expenditure of those rental revenues by government?  And if the rental
fees are proportionate to market value, which must be determined in some
part by the choices made by that user with regard to "his" land during
his period of "ownership" of the land use privilege, isn't that user
paying more for the same real return?


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On 19 Dec 2004 11:41:58 -0500, [email] wrote:

Only if you consider God the only source of morality.

??  And you think everyone agrees with Locke's idea of God?

Obviously, not everyone is going to agree with any given moral
argument.  The religious don't accept arguments that are not
consistent with their idiosyncratic assumptions of supernatural
revelation, and sociopaths don't give a fig for any moral arguments.

Land rent was not understood at that time, but Locke's argument is
clearly relevant to current discussions of land rent.  It is central
to solving the problem of reconciling the individual right to access
natural resources with the fact that such access must frequently be
exclusive to be useful.

Zero tolerance is unscientific nonsense.

How else can the equal rights of all be secured?

More zero tolerance...?

What gives them the right to prevent others from using it?

Possession founded on nothing but appropriation is just as
legitimately overturned by appropriation.  Where does the land's user
get the right to prevent others from using it?

??  Of course they should.  Not charging them rent would grant them a
dog-in-the-manger privilege.  Private landlords don't forego the rent
for unproductive users, so why would the community, which has a much
more valid claim to the rent?  You also seem to be getting confused
between economic rent and vernacular rent.

It's not "their" land.  And how often do you see those with more
financial resources forcing people off rented land or out of rented
premises now?  How would this somehow become more prevalent if the
rent was being recovered by the community?

That is the same with any spending and revenue system, net of inherent
characteristics of simplicity, transparency, equality, etc., which all
favor land rent recovery over other alternatives.

Of course, any institutional arrangement can in theory be corrupted.
But it's much harder with land, because everything is public.

True, the notion of the general welfare has been expanded to
near-meaninglessness; but the flaws in the design of current
democratic institutions are a separate issue.  At least even under
current institutions, considerable effort is devoted to maintaining an
appearance of even-handedness.

As land can't move, LVT is a natural choice for local governments.

I don't know how it might be made international, but it has certainly
worked well in national settings.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] writes:

...

What exactly was the point of the Lckean Proviso?

Federal spending, as with state and local spending, is an
issue of taxation not ownership.

Maybe, maybe not. One of the major commuter roads in
my area is a private toll road. It's just as micely paved
as any of the government provided ones and (perhaps merely
because it's only about 10 years old) a lot nicer than
a lot of them.

The problem of horse manuer is easily solved by requiring the
owner to have the horse ware a bag to catch the feces.

We had cars and trucks before we had paved roads, and
before we had as many public roads. The evolution of
4x4 SUVs that can go off road took place when there was
little practical need for this; do you really think
these designs would not have been developed sooner
if they were required due to bad roads?

So now we need to live like ants so social services and
public infrastructure (government provided I assume) can
be produced more efficiently? Isn't that the governmental
tail wagging the general population dog?

I assume you're really not trying to argue that people
should be prevented from moving to the finges (create
sprawl) but you might want to check which particular
set of lens you have on when making certain arguments.

"Due to land-hoarding there is indeed a shortage
of developable land on the market in the most livable
areas of California, not to mention the sprawl that taxing
capital improvements more than land encourages."
Your words. Obviously the two cannot really co-exists
in the same location at the same time.

I don't doubt that California, and a bunch of other places
have some pretty screwy land development.

I'm honestly not sure exactly what

How much of the restriction on development in Valencia and
Irvine is based on people owning the land but not being willing
to develop it verses not being willing to develop it because the
existing regulation on development make the development a
low return activity. In other words, what is the speculation
related to, local economic grouwth or regulatory change?

I don't know that answer, and being on the east coast
don't have much of an incentive to go look that up
or make the trip cross country to get the answer but
you should be looking into that. All the zoning and
development plans and regulations are independant of
how taxes are levied.

Thinking aobut that now, it strikes me that political
rent-seeking in the form of zoning and land use regulations
will be useful in creating differential LVT burdens and some
of the brighter people in business will figure out just how
to take advantage of that as they currently do in lobbying
for all kinds of taxc legislation, exemptions, accellerated
depreciation, expensing verses capitalizing, and the like.
It will just be less visible since it won't be a direct
request to reduce the tax liabilities of the interest
group.

I'm not sure which system makes my life better or which
produces a superior economic setting--that's all part
of your decision analysis.

jmh


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:35:11 GMT, "robert j. kolker"
<[email]> wrote:

Nope.  It comes from the equal rights of all to use what nature
provided equally to all.  The legal institutions, etc. are just the
means the community employs to secure those rights for all its
members.

False dichotomy fallacy.  There are lots of alternatives.

Unless, like current landowners, we get it done for us by government.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
robert j. kolker wrote:

I would first like to say to all who are reading this thread that I have
never (in my memory (which ain't so good any more)) agreed with anything
that Bod Kolker has ever said.  But this time he actually got one right.
It is a lot less expensive to have those who are good at wielding sharp
sticks and those who are good at conducting trials and such doing that
job so that the rest of us can do what we are "good at".  The problem is
in making sure that these wielders of the sharp sticks and the judges
and the wardens are serving the greater good as opposed to their own
best interests.  Nonetheless, there is no such thing as a "Free hold"
in that we would spend more time and energy in defending our land claim
from those who would kill us and remove us than we will ever spend by
paying the "experts" to do the job.  There is no such thing as "allodium"
because land tenure requires enforcement.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:45:14 GMT, Igor <[email]>
wrote:

Flat false.  There is probably little additional effect on allocation
and improvement beyond about 50% rent recovery.

Flat false.

Flat false.

Flat false.

A land value tax doesn't.  A per capita tax on owners would.

It has the effect of _removing_ inefficient distortions.

Flat false.  As I have told you repeatedly, you have not the slightest
understanding of the works of Henry George.  None.  Zero.  Zip.  Nil.
Nada.

Flat false.

Flat false.

Flat false.

ROTFL!!  I have read millions of words on the theory and history of
taxation.  Can you say the same?  The answer is obvious.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:52:21 GMT, Igor <[email]>
wrote:

Do not presume to speak for Henry George, of whose work you clearly
have not the slightest understanding.

And...?

Oh, sure, legal rights, the same as the legal rights of a slave owner
in a society where slavery is a recognized institution.  I don't think
Paul was talking about legal rights, because then his point is just
stupid and vacuous.  As yours is.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy called "begging the question."
We all know landowners have a legal right to their land.  That is not
the question, because legal rights are created by law and can just as
validly be erased by law; so if the law was changed to make Paul's
land public, his _legal_ rights would disappear without a trace, and
not be violated.  So unless Paul is as stupid as you (which, granted,
is quite possible), he was clearly talking about some sort of "right"
entirely distinct from his legal ones.

Correct.  The slave owner got to appropriate the fruits of his slave's
labor.  The landowner gets to appropriate part of the fruits of pretty
much everyone's labor.

Which right is contingent on payment of the taxes.  Which taxes are
entirely at the discretion of the relevant jurisdiction(s).  True.

That is a lie.  Deeds to slaves never designated them as "capital."

Anyway, no one disputes that land titles are legally assets, just as
slaves were.

Nope.  Valid property rights rest on an act of production.  Land was
never produced, and therefore can never have validly become property
in the first place.

True, but irrelevant to the issue.  There have been numerous cases of
economic systems in the absence of property rights in _land_.  To make
any sort of argument along these lines, you need to show that property
rights _in_land_ are necessary to the function of an economic system
(hint: you can't).  Property rights in human beings were abolished,
and the economic system went on just as well as -- in fact better than
-- before.  And unlike land, slaves were products of labor ;^)

We are also in the state of nature with them.

Then you are an idiot who has not yet understood the children's fable
about the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Among other things.  But maybe you should clarify what you mean by
"right."

Strawman.  I have not suggested eliminating property rights.  That was
Karl Marx.  You claim that eliminating private property rights in land
is the same as eliminating all property rights.  That claim is a
flat-out lie, and just as false, stupid and dishonest as the slave
owners' claim that eliminating property rights in human beings would
be the same as eliminating all property rights.  It is astonishing how
eager the defenders of landowner privilege are to arm themselves with
the "logic" of slavery.

Sure: tenant-like rights of use that did not include keeping the rent.

The standard of equal rights.  There is no way to implement equal
rights while granting some people privileges over others.  That is why
the logic of private landownership finds so much commonality with the
logic of slavery.

Philosophy informs all scientific disciplines.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:54:08 -0500, "Paul A Thomas" <[email]>
wrote:

You are equivocating (attempting to deceive by using a word in
inconsistent senses).  Those are not products in the economic sense,
but merely expressions of your personal sentiments.

And if those are the land's best and most productive uses, they would
continue to do so after government assumed title to the land -- but
without having to come on bended knee and beg permission from -- or
pay -- Your Lordship.

So what?  All locations are equally unique.  If that land truly is
most valuable to the community as is, it should be made a public park,
and not left to the tender mercies of Your Lordship's (or your heirs')
private whims.  Your "argument" is nothing but a supercilious,
conceited, arrogant claim to privilege, utterly without content or
factual support.  Do you really imagine anyone in sci.econ is going to
be fooled by such juvenile, self-serving crap?

News Flash, pal: _You_ have _already_ taken it away from
_everyone_else_.  If they use it, it is only by your permission.
Somehow, I get the feeling that you _enjoy_ being in a postion to
grant or deny other people permissions...

Uh-huh.  What is really amazing is the landowner's greed and
invulnerable, aristocratic sense of entitlement.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
<[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...
<[email]>
Welcome
foundation
Purchase

Wow - you're short-sighted, illogical, humorless, and self-righteous to
boot! Glad to make your acquaintance.

BeachBum