Georgism

[AdanSmith]

Raising the rent on a tenant to cover taxes is hardly impossible

It is if you can move to a lower cost unit.

If you live in a city and your rent is 1000 an the vacancy rate is 3% you have no choice but to accept. But if you live in a city with a constant 20% housing vacancy rate you can move virtually anywhere as my #2 answer above states.

[Radar]

Once again you are showing what an ass you are.

There are no "common rights". There never have been and never will be. There are only individual rights, period.

Under what principle? - spell it out exactly...

People are born with the right to life which means you can breathe. Nobody can make it against the law for you to breathe. But you are not entitled to take from others based on your needs and you're not entitled to the earnings of others because a particular resource has become more scarce.

If you own land and someone pollutes on it a crime has been committed. If they pollute their own land no crime has been committed unless they pollute the water table and it gets onto your land. The same is true of all forms of pollution. The reason you haven't seen a case prosecuted is because the largest polluter on earth (The US government) won't allow themselves to be prosecuted because they claim to have immunity.

Originally posted by AdanSmith
If you live in a city and your rent is 1000 an the vacancy rate is 3% you have no choice but to accept. But if you live in a city with a constant 20% housing vacancy rate you can move virtually anywhere as my #2 answer above states.

That's a mighty big if. And it's ignoring the hassle of moving. You don't think some people would trade that for an extra, say, eighty bucks a month?

(Hint: they will. I know, 'cause we own a number of houses, and as costs go up, so must the rent. And guess what? People pay it!)

[AdanSmith]

There are only individual rights, period

Listen up - I am talking about assigning individual rights...that is what you want - isn't it?

or are you going to contradict yourself again?

Nobody can make it against the law for you to breathe. But you are not entitled to take from others based on your needs

Exactly - without assigning individual, inalienable, equal access rights for all how are going to determine who is taking more for their needs robbing me of mine?

isn't it better in your perfect little adjudication world to spell it out so rights aren't trampled?

you're not entitled to the earnings of others because a particular resource has become more scarce.

Exactly - you are suggesting stealing from those who creates the extrinsic value that naturally occurs under monopoly conditions, not me!

The same is true of all forms of pollution

Ok, I am still waiting to hear about how your adjudication system for air pollution will specifically help my son's asthma condition...let's start with the basics shall we - who am I going to sue?

The reason you haven't seen a case prosecuted is because the largest polluter on earth (The US government) won't allow themselves to be prosecuted because they claim to have immunity

Typical macho flash response to throw a little red meat into the pen of lions to help you defend an untenable position...

[AdanSmith]

That's a mighty big if. And it's ignoring the hassle of moving. You don't think some people would trade that for an extra, say, eighty bucks a month?

Why, if the hassles are simply pack up your stuff and move to any pick of similiar apts. within walking distance?

which I bet are not the circumstances that your serfs find themselves - correct?

[Torrere]

Why, if the hassles are simply pack up your stuff and move to any pick of similiar apts. within walking distance?

Going to another appartement nearby does not help you avoid tax because the tax applies to all landlords (and hence all tenants) within the region that the tax is imposed.

Besides, if rent went up a bit it would probably be easier for me to stay here than it would be to find another appartement nearby and move there.

[daniwong]

I just want to say that I have read this entire post now 3 times. I'm still so confused that it is making my head hurt. I guess I just don't get it. So - even though the new post light keeps grabbing my eye - I'm moving on........

[Undertoad]

So, in other words, Radar wanted to debate you on this esoteric minutae of political philosophy, and chose here to be the place, yet both of you refuse to state your basic definitions for the rest of us, insisting that we do a lot of complicated reading first?

I don't get it.

[Radar]

Listen up - I am talking about assigning individual rights...that is what you want - isn't it? or are you going to contradict yourself again?

I never contradicted myself in the first place. You failed in your last attempt to point out a contradiction because there was none. Try again.

Exactly - without assigning individual, inalienable, equal access rights for all how are going to determine who is taking more for their needs robbing me of mine?

You don't. You don't need to determine who is using more air. And if someone is using all the land and you have none, they are not robbing you of anything, nor are you being robbed if someone else breathes more than you. Nor are you being robbed if someone puts air in bottles. Nor are you being robbed if someone pollutes the air. This is the base level fallacy in your poor excuse for logic.

You don't measure how much air each person gets, not only because it's impossible and impractical, but also because it's just plain stupid. You do measure land though and you are not entitled to any land or any compensation for land you don't own because land has become more scarce. If you want land, work for it and get it while the getting is good or be left out in the cold.

isn't it better in your perfect little adjudication world to spell it out so rights aren't trampled?

Get this through your thick skull and into your empty head...YOUR RIGHTS ARE NOT BEING TRAMPLED!!! at least in terms of this discussion. You don't have a right to land. You don't have a right to a certain amount of air. You don't have a right to be compensated for land being more scarce. YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE RIGHTS SO THEY AREN'T BEING TRAMPLED ON!!

And for the record, yes, it is better living in a world of reality than the fantasy world you suggest. Your desire to be a victim has left you devoid of logic.

Exactly - you are suggesting stealing from those who creates the extrinsic value that naturally occurs under monopoly conditions, not me!

Wrong again. The land owner isn't STEALING from anyone. Even if one person owned 80% of all the land mass on earth and everyone else on earth had to share the other 20%, he wouldn't be stealing. That is a retarded notion put forth by idiots.

Ok, I am still waiting to hear about how your adjudication system for air pollution will specifically help my son's asthma condition...let's start with the basics shall we - who am I going to sue?

Well, given the fact that you're not born with the right to have air that is free from pollution, you really would have a hard time suing anyone. But let's say you lived next door to a factory that was spewing poisons into the air. You could sue them when your son got sick and they'd most likely settle out of court to get you to shut up. Your kid would get treatment. Although if I were a parent who loved my kid, I'd move somewhere else. But what should I expect from you...an irresponsible, thief who attempts to justify their robbery by telling lies and making false claims that others are thieves for not allowing you to rob them.

Typical macho flash response to throw a little red meat into the pen of lions to help you defend an untenable position...

Typical moronic response to a cogent, intelligent, reasonable and rational argument that you can't refute. My position has been defended perfectly. Yours has no defense. Your logic is circular and flawed, your arguments have no merit, and your philosophy is a joke.

So, in other words, Radar wanted to debate you on this esoteric minutae of political philosophy, and chose here to be the place, yet both of you refuse to state your basic definitions for the rest of us, insisting that we do a lot of complicated reading first?

I don't get it.

I thought this was a more appropriate forum than the FSP site. Also I wanted to hear from the others in here. I have given you a link to a site that clearly defines and describes georgism and the faults with it. I'll try to give you the readers digest version.

The followers of Henry George (Georgists) are socialists who lie and claim to be classic liberalists (libertarians) and think that land belongs to "EVERYONE". They think they are born with the entitlement to land and if someone buys a lot of land, land becomes more scarce so they think they are entitled to be compensated (through robbery) because land has become more expensive due to available land becoming more scarce (the law of supply and demand). There are many flavors of this extremely flawed and ignorant philosophy but they basically range from socialism to hard-core communism.

There have been a number of ignorant people who have championed this philosophy such as the Adam Smith whom this idiot has named himself after.

I hope this has cleared things up. I don't think I can take it below the elementary level.

[xoxoxoBruce]

C'mon Radar, you brought him here to make yourself look rational and reasonable, didn't you. Got to hand it to you, it worked. This guy is really unbelievable.

[Undertoad]

Smitty, did Radar tell you of his history here?

[Torrere]

I wonder if Radar would have supported the settlers taking the land that the natives lived on in the 1800s.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It wasnt taking the land the natives lived on, it was assigning them the right to selected lands.:p

[AdanSmith]

I can see this is going nowhere fast!

ok children, let's try a different angle with some role playing...

Georgists...claim to be classic liberalists (libertarians)

question:Now Radar let's start with you - who are the original classical liberals?

answer: why - The French Physiocrats in response to that awful mercantile system...

question: And why do you say that Radar?

answer: because they were the first to use the word laissez-faire which in english means "leave alone"

laissez-faire

Very good Radar you may have a cookie now!

question: and what does Physiocrat actually mean in English?

answer: “rule of nature” because they believed the inherent natural order governing society was based on land and its natural products as the only true form of wealth.

Physiocrat

Oui Oui, another right answer Radar - my you have been reading your homework - good boy...now, one last question before you run off to the bathroom to stop all that wiggling around in your seat.

question: Here is the 64 million dollar question mon petit garcon. If you get it right you then achieve the privilege of calling yourself a "geo-libertarian"and the kids will no longer tease you out in the schoolyard by calling you a "neo-libertarian"...ready?

answer: Oh boy I can't wait but I hope I don't piss in my pants trying to figure out a way to remain ignorant like the rest of my "neo-libertarian" pals on the playground.

question:Radar, what is the significance of the term "l'impot unique"

answer:hmmm...let me think (as he looks outside to his pals in the schoolyard) and then yells out "the theory that ALL TAXATION IS THEFT - long live the Neo-Libs!" (as he runs out of the room with a huge wet stain on the front of his pants)

Teacher to the rest of the class: I am afraid that you have just witnessed another case of "Rothbarditis" where someone's dogma overcomes their reason.

The real answer is The Physiocrats advocated the impot unique to make the landowners of France pay for the expenses of the sovereign thus avoiding the onerous taxation of the peasants, workers, and cultivators of land. It was to be a levy on the value of land exclusive of improvements such as crops, houses, barns, fertilization- as well as the wealth produced by labor and capital utilizing land, the source of all wealth.

There is a paradox in the concept of the "single tax." In form, it may appear as another type of tax but, in substance, it is a taking by the community of that value exclusively created by the community since the genesis of ground rent is a) population combined with b)production. Thus, the landowner qua landowner is a parasite on production.

L'Impot Unique

Poor Radar has choosen the false comfort of his neo-libertarian "schoolyard pals" rather than standing with historical facts - the original classical liberal Geo-libertarians...

End of class - dismissed!

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by AdanSmith
Poor Radar has choosen the false comfort of his "schoolyard pals"

As long as you're not referring to us as the "schoolyard pals"...he's no pal of ours.