The difference is the state forces the free, any man who happens to be on their after the fact declared property. While in the latter there is an accepted agreement, and he is going onto the OWNER'S property
A state is a publicly owned corporation. The land it owns is rented out to employees of the corporations(I.E. you) or smaller departments responsible for other tasks(like extracting coal).
If the state was a publicly owned corporation only shareholders would have voting rights (ie taxpayers, with those paying more taxes having a bigger say). This clearly doesn't happen today. Modern states also don't have a board of directors to keep the executive in place.
I'm an anarchist/libertarian who is rather primitive in his thinking. Suffice it to say, I'm very impressed by this idea that you have laid out. Is there someone who has talked about government in this way or is this something you thought of yourself. The world has been trending towards a stakeholder model. Shareholder governance is an excellent response to stakeholder capitalism and governance. We will lurch further into the abyss of socialism before this style of government will be considered by even 1% of the populace, but the idea of shareholder government will be around when people wake up.
A corporation doesn't have to function exactly identically to the way it does under the modern western legal framework for it to remain recognizably a corporation. If you're worried about things like being born under a contract then that's too bad. You're living on Wal-Merica's land and you'll have to follow its own corporate rules(pay rent or pay rent to someone that is being delegated authority over a section of property).
>While in the latter there is an accepted agreement
You live in a country you "accept" paying taxes in the same way you have to "accept" paying rent. If someone doesn't accept the agreement to pay taxes what's to stop them from not accepting the agreement to pay rent. In both instances state force is involved.
And who's to decide what you "own" and enforce your ownership of the land you rent? Oh right the state again. So even the landlords are state sponsored wienerroaches.
Shelter is a basic commodity that everyone needs and shouldn't be up for speculation.
Geolibertarianism isn't "Frick landlords", it's "Landowners should pay the community or government a tax, LVT (land value tax), in return for the recognition of their status as landowners by the people and there should be no other taxes, as LVT is the only tax that makes sense since the purpose of government, i.e. its primary service to the people, is to police and defend the nation (and its people) after all so a tax is basically like a fee for this service but this tax also happens to be really really efficient anyway so long as there are no other taxes diminishing its effectiveness so it just makes sense practically and no it's not the same as a property tax and yeah you can even get a citizen's dividend/UBI out of it too with a small government so that's cool".
Read Progress and Poverty.
elon musk rents his house. he owns no property. now what? all that will happen is billionaires start living in the four seasons. georgism is so fricking dumb only some javascript coder could think it's a good idea.
>elon musk rents his house.
Good for him? >all that will happen is billionaires start living in the four seasons.
Good. Now that land can be used by the people instead of being owned by Russian oligarchs or rich Chinamen.
You are fundamentally confused btw. Geolibertarianism isn't about stealing people's money. If you don't own land, then you shouldn't be taxed. Simple as.
Still, you massively underestimate just how much wealth is based on landownership. For example: What would McDonald's be without all of it's real-estate?
Well, McDonald's probably doesn't own most of the land they operate on, certainly not the stores. That would mean real estate companies would be paying the taxes. That would drive the cost of rent up. Renters of all kinds would be paying higher rents, effectively paying the tax without getting any say in their government.
2 years ago
Anonymous
do you realize how regressive of a tax that is since it will make the prices of everything you buy in retail, services like healthcare, not to mention your rent more expensive with no regard to your income level? if georgism made any sense at all some blue state like massachusetts would have already tried it. if it's too stupid even for them, it's safe to say it's shit.
let's make the land where food is produced more expensive via a big tax so that food which is normally untaxed at retail sale in most states now has a tax baked into the price! genius idea you fricking idiots.
>LVT will drive up prices! >t. has never read economics
Sorry chud, but LVT doesn't discourage production and it doesn't distort markets :^)
Landowners won't just "pass the costs" onto their tenants. It is literally the perfect tax. >let's make the land where food is produced more expensive via a big tax
Land in rural areas with less people will naturally have less value, so they won't pay ass much as land in cities like NYC.
2 years ago
Anonymous
am i supposed to be mad that rich people bought expensive condos in nyc? grow up man.
do you realize how regressive of a tax that is since it will make the prices of everything you buy in retail, services like healthcare, not to mention your rent more expensive with no regard to your income level? if georgism made any sense at all some blue state like massachusetts would have already tried it. if it's too stupid even for them, it's safe to say it's shit.
Maybe, Elon Musk would own his house and lots of farmland if there were better incentives to owning them, such as voting rights. Other people would want these rights, and the price of land would go up. It would be a good investment in the short-term and for years to come.
let's make the land where food is produced more expensive via a big tax so that food which is normally untaxed at retail sale in most states now has a tax baked into the price! genius idea you fricking idiots.
The difference is the state forces the free, any man who happens to be on their after the fact declared property. While in the latter there is an accepted agreement, and he is going onto the OWNER'S property
A state is a publicly owned corporation. The land it owns is rented out to employees of the corporations(I.E. you) or smaller departments responsible for other tasks(like extracting coal).
If the state was a publicly owned corporation only shareholders would have voting rights (ie taxpayers, with those paying more taxes having a bigger say). This clearly doesn't happen today. Modern states also don't have a board of directors to keep the executive in place.
I'm an anarchist/libertarian who is rather primitive in his thinking. Suffice it to say, I'm very impressed by this idea that you have laid out. Is there someone who has talked about government in this way or is this something you thought of yourself. The world has been trending towards a stakeholder model. Shareholder governance is an excellent response to stakeholder capitalism and governance. We will lurch further into the abyss of socialism before this style of government will be considered by even 1% of the populace, but the idea of shareholder government will be around when people wake up.
A corporation doesn't have to function exactly identically to the way it does under the modern western legal framework for it to remain recognizably a corporation. If you're worried about things like being born under a contract then that's too bad. You're living on Wal-Merica's land and you'll have to follow its own corporate rules(pay rent or pay rent to someone that is being delegated authority over a section of property).
>While in the latter there is an accepted agreement
You live in a country you "accept" paying taxes in the same way you have to "accept" paying rent. If someone doesn't accept the agreement to pay taxes what's to stop them from not accepting the agreement to pay rent. In both instances state force is involved.
And who's to decide what you "own" and enforce your ownership of the land you rent? Oh right the state again. So even the landlords are state sponsored wienerroaches.
Shelter is a basic commodity that everyone needs and shouldn't be up for speculation.
I fail to see substantive differences between the two, beyond the goofy feels over reals terms like free, and owner.
Geolibertarianism isn't "Frick landlords", it's "Landowners should pay the community or government a tax, LVT (land value tax), in return for the recognition of their status as landowners by the people and there should be no other taxes, as LVT is the only tax that makes sense since the purpose of government, i.e. its primary service to the people, is to police and defend the nation (and its people) after all so a tax is basically like a fee for this service but this tax also happens to be really really efficient anyway so long as there are no other taxes diminishing its effectiveness so it just makes sense practically and no it's not the same as a property tax and yeah you can even get a citizen's dividend/UBI out of it too with a small government so that's cool".
Read Progress and Poverty.
Now that's what I call a Louisiana purchase!
elon musk rents his house. he owns no property. now what? all that will happen is billionaires start living in the four seasons. georgism is so fricking dumb only some javascript coder could think it's a good idea.
>elon musk rents his house.
Good for him?
>all that will happen is billionaires start living in the four seasons.
Good. Now that land can be used by the people instead of being owned by Russian oligarchs or rich Chinamen.
You are fundamentally confused btw. Geolibertarianism isn't about stealing people's money. If you don't own land, then you shouldn't be taxed. Simple as.
Still, you massively underestimate just how much wealth is based on landownership. For example: What would McDonald's be without all of it's real-estate?
Well, McDonald's probably doesn't own most of the land they operate on, certainly not the stores. That would mean real estate companies would be paying the taxes. That would drive the cost of rent up. Renters of all kinds would be paying higher rents, effectively paying the tax without getting any say in their government.
>LVT will drive up prices!
>t. has never read economics
Sorry chud, but LVT doesn't discourage production and it doesn't distort markets :^)
Landowners won't just "pass the costs" onto their tenants. It is literally the perfect tax.
>let's make the land where food is produced more expensive via a big tax
Land in rural areas with less people will naturally have less value, so they won't pay ass much as land in cities like NYC.
am i supposed to be mad that rich people bought expensive condos in nyc? grow up man.
do you realize how regressive of a tax that is since it will make the prices of everything you buy in retail, services like healthcare, not to mention your rent more expensive with no regard to your income level? if georgism made any sense at all some blue state like massachusetts would have already tried it. if it's too stupid even for them, it's safe to say it's shit.
Maybe, Elon Musk would own his house and lots of farmland if there were better incentives to owning them, such as voting rights. Other people would want these rights, and the price of land would go up. It would be a good investment in the short-term and for years to come.
let's make the land where food is produced more expensive via a big tax so that food which is normally untaxed at retail sale in most states now has a tax baked into the price! genius idea you fricking idiots.
Feudalism with corporate officers. In the fantasy section.
I saved you a read, you're welcome.
>I WANT TO READ BOOKS ABOUT MY OBSCURE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY I JUST FOUND ON WIKIPEDIA
Henry George, Thomas Paine are your go to writers