Who else /libertarian georgist master race/ in here?

american libertarians have ruined any sort or form of libertarianism.

if you call yourself a libertarian today (even if you are a socialist) you are a fucking cancer

Reminder about the cancer that is Royal Libertarianism
geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

Forgot image

Georgism is absolutely patrician

I chuckled

Now you're speaking my language.

youtube.com/watch?v=7HZANYxnkWk
youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE
youtube.com/watch?v=TpqtfMraJvU
Some videos for people unaware or interested in Georgism or Henry himself

...

How do we decide who gets what land doe?

No need to decide, under proper spending conditions, a LVT, and 100% land capture rate the amount of revenue generated is enough to pay for all public services and a citizens dividend as LVT has no dead weight loss. There is a reason why historically its been mostly well regarded and why Marx thought that Georgism was the "last ditch of Capitalism".

Under the current system landlords can drain those on their land for everything their worth as their only other option is to be homeless. Landowners who also do not develop their land properly and hoard it can just sit on their property as well and let the improvements created by the laborers around them increase the value of their land indefinitely. Eventually you get a society where the poorest are forced either to live on the landlords land and pay him whatever fee he wants or live on the farthest reaches of cities, watching perfectly good land go undeveloped while they starve. It doesn't matter what improvements are created in the society, because the laborer must live off someone else's land he must give whatever he makes to the person who owns it and live in a state of subsistence.

OK, but some pieces of land are much more desirable than others. Who gets the best bits?

You get the bit you buy, just like now. Then you pay rent on it. The more desirable, the more the rent. There's commercial monopoly rents too. The likes of Google and Amazon would pay very high taxes, probably 90%+

Applying the land-value tax means different pieces of land are taxed differently based on soil quality and location. So, getting the best land means paying a hefty tax for as long as you own it. (A different way of looking at the same situation is to say that no private person owns any land, the public owns the land; and the LVT isn't even a tax then, it is a fee for using land/not letting others use it.)

Were not dividing land, were transferring the value landowners unfairly extract from it through natural resources that should be shared or by simply holding on to it to the general populace through a citizen's dividend (essentially a basic income). It prevents landowners from hoarding empty land and not improving it and because it taxes the base value of the land the tax cannot be passed down to the tenets. Landowners can either improve what they have, which also improves the society, or sell their land off immediately or lose profit. If they cannot pay the tax, the land is seized and distributed as necessary with the LVT still applied to it. Henry Georges theorem show how under an LVT, all necessities can be provided. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem

Basically, Georgism recognizes no one owns the land, it was there to begin with. Those who hold it or exploit natural resources must pay what is essentially a users fee to the rest of the community. If they cannot, they have no right using it.

Georgism had a huge following in the United Labor Party and was popular among many thinkers until general leftist divisions between different sects divided it, but at its height it outvoted Theodore Roosevelt for seat of mayor when Henry George ran (still lost generally).

It sounds cliche, but georgism really is the silver bullet

tl;dr Read Price and Poverty

Actually that would be a better way to look at it as that's kind of a principle of Georgism - no one put the land or the resources in the land there so it's not theirs to own, they only get what they laboured to achieve.

OK, but someone still gets to live in the nicest area…

Like, I would love to live in Yosemite Valley if I could, but I'm sure hella other people would also, so what do we do about that?

Why does some abstract community deserve the fruits of my labor? The land is worthless without labor being applied to it, I am the one applying my labor to it, therefor I deserve what it produces, since without my labor it produces nothing. Why does the nearby village have some claim on unworked land, thereby allowing them to impose rents on me?

You could move there if you wanted, but the general idea that under Georgism the standard of living in all places would become better (especially in cities) and large corporations would be unable to abuse resources and pollute without losing profit or paying the public. You would basically be able to acually afford to live in Yosemite, but now you could also live anywhere else comfortably as well.

Also, if anyone was wondering why you cant pass it to the tenets, George explains:
schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/hg-speeches/why-the-landowner-cannot-shift-the-tax-on-land-values.html

This is a solid point, comrade. This is why instead of a tax system I think we should just make sure everyone's needs are taken care of and then I think the vast majority of us would contribute to society however we could, and would be motivated to improve ourselves so we could better contribute.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS/HER ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS/HER NEED!

So? Doesn't matter which system you live in someone's always gonna live in a nicer spot than the next guy unless we all live on the same spot.
You get to decide whether you want to spend your money living/working in a nice spot or on hookers and coke.

Progress and Poverty, you mean.

They don't. Try reading Progress and Poverty.

Right well under the capitalist system land rights are purchased on the market and then those rights are enforced by the state. Is that how it would work under Georgism too, except that you couldn't charge rent on your property?

You could charge rent. But you pay tax on rent.

Because by holding unto that land and not working it you are effectively, as time goes on, forcing people to have to either purchase or rent your land. If you develop your land and improve it some way, you can mitigate it but this mainly prevents individuals from hoarding too much. Poor farmers actually benefit greatly under Georgism. Here is some answers to some common questions: kaalvtn.blogspot.com/p/index.html

Sorry mistyped, its 4:00am where I am

Basically, Georgism is a commune of individuals splitting and sharing the wealth of the land.

It seems to me that the tax revenue I'd get is a poor consolation for not getting to own the choice land.

It seems to me you don't know anything about the subject and are incredibly confused.

WHO GETS WHAT LAND?!?!

The amount of revenue is actually so much, you could have paid Health Care, socialized public services, and a basic living income and a bit more left over.

Read Joseph Stiglitz

Its the labor party all over again

...

I agree.

If a society isn't voluntary then that implies it needs use coercion so that someone or some group can exploit another.

But if land rights are based upon use and possession, then an individual could not own land they do not work or live on, preventing hoarding or renting.

How are land values even assessed in isolation from its improvements? Isn't the vast majority of the value of productive land in the improvements on that land? How do we separate that out? Once someone builds something on the land isn't that effectively now the land itself?

George actually understood this and wrote how structures that eventually blended into the land over time could be viewed as part of that lands value, but you can't just put a parking lot and expect value to jump up immediately, its wasteful misuse of the land,

They aren't really.
Yes.
You don't.
No. The land is the bit underneath the building.

So right now when someone buys a piece of land they buy the land along with all the improvements on it, and then property tax is assessed by taking a fraction of the market value of the entire piece of property, the land and its improvements. I gather this isn't how Georgism works, that it only taxes the value of the land itself. How does this work?

...

...

This isn't anarchy, its a evidence based and practical system of bringing all individuals in the system up by distributing the value of the land so basic needs can be met. It effectively ends poverty in the most simple and logical, fact backed manner. The math is there if you look up the theorem and no one has brought up a good argument disproving it, in fact as time goes on observation has shown the conditions can actually be eased and the results kept. Here's a very bare bones, simple explanation: youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE

Also earthsharing.org.au/

It may also be the quickest solution to saving wildlife youtube.com/watch?v=TTiVS2lhMuY

Wow, so having watched this video I doubly don't like georgism. I don't want people who choose to live a simple lifestyle on relatively unimproved land to be punished. There's already way too much urbanized and industrialized land. Also, he just pulls the land values out of his ass. How would these be determined in practice?

Henry George School has a youtube channel where all this is explained in more detail

I know it's not anarchy, that's why I'm against it. It might function very well at what it's supposed to do, but I don't want to solve poverty with theft.

Amen, based anarchist comrade!

...

They wont, in fact the simple farmer who tills his land does better in Georgism then the current one. Dividend subsides are even discussed if the proper theorum conditions can't be perfectly met as there is still an excess of wealth created. Only those who hoard land and sit on it are punished as they are effectively earning without doing anything. We could end poverty right now with Georgism, but like the labor party of the 19th century divisons on achieving the "perfect communism" prevent us from helping those in need right now. This happens every time, hell labor tried to get a candidate in three times and every time ancoms prevented it. Can't we focus on saving people now in the most logical and quickest manner?

You're making the mistake of thinking reformism and liberal democracy can actually fix anything. If revolution is the only way to bring about Georgism, then why half ass it and not go all the way to communism?

Not my favorite kind of utopianism, which would be Blanquism, but it's an interesting historical artifact.

We could end poverty right now just by taking half the US military budget and using it to fund public housing and farms/gardens/kitchens.

Because Georgism doesn't require a revolution, its why so many thinkers from Helen Keller to Tolstoy to Einstien loved it. It is a simple transition away, its just ignored. If you love ancom so much, isn't it better to plan it in a society people aren't starving in?

Again, how is land value assessed in isolation from its improvements? Let's say someone is farming some land near enough to a city that an apartment building could be profitably built there. Wouldn't that make the value of his land, and therefore his land value tax, much higher than he would be able to afford as a turnip farmer? Or are you saying that he would use his dividends to pay his tax?

If it can't be achieved through reform (which no real change can) then it can only be through revolution.

It actually wouldn't be enough, the Henry George Theorum takes this into account. This assumes that LVT will be the only tax. Henery George also wanted the patent system is also freed up to prevent monopoly and wanted to reduce military spending as well.

So my understanding is that we already produce enough food to feed everyone but that it just doesn't get distributed where it needs to go. So really we just need fuel and vehicles to move food to the hungry people. I am certain that a small fraction of the US military budget would be enough for that. That leaves housing. Again, my understanding is that we have already built enough housing to comfortably house everyone but that it's just not being used efficiently. If some more housing needs to be built, again we're talking about trillions of dollars over a few years….

The reality is that modern technology has allowed us to provide for basic human needs with a tiny amount of labor and energy, which is why the fact that poverty not only persists but is so widespread is an absolute tragedy.

It actually has a lot of math behind it now, especially with Stiglitz and other showing that George was more right then he thought himself to be.

It seems to me under any system, most individuals wouldn't get the monopoly ownership of the very best piece of land. You know, because several people exist.

On that land and around. Land with nothing on it is extremely valuable in Tokyo. Surely the market value of land with nothing on it doesn't come from the landlord's hard work.

One can always count on the "left"-"coms" here to say the weirdest things.

Right, so it seems like Georgism would force everyone to maximize the productivity of their land or else be unable to afford the LVT, which might seem like a good thing except that it would destroy the natural environment.

Right, which is why we shouldn't have land ownership, and we especially shouldn't have land ownership of beautiful and ecologically important intact natural ecosystems.

I didn't call landlords or the existence of territorial value (a type of fixed capital, already present under primitive accumulation by the way) history; I called Georgism history. Reading comprehension, user.

If the problem isn't history, the solution isn't history.

Just woke up, as I stated here Georgism actually helps protect wildlife as it dicourages urban sprawl and focuses back on efficently using the land you have. In modern Georgism the land-rent is also applied to extracted resources, severables, and pollution as those involve the use of natural shared resources or depreciates the land (which is shared). Your acting like somehow under an ancom society people would somehow not kill off wildlife or use up resourcces but the opposite is true. Because ancoms skip over the use of a vanguard state there is no limit to where one can place their home, even on a natural landscape, and limit on how much an individual can use the land around them as to do so would imply a heirarchy enforcing they don't kill certain creatures or live on certain spots. Even in underdeveloped non-tribal emerging communities there was the problem of groups cutting down forests to make farms, something I think you would agree was done communily. Ancom isn't Anprim, people still use industrialized machinary and have to make room for the needs of the individuals. You said before you want to go to Yosemite, so do a lot of people. By not limiting the amount of resources being used, your dooming the surrounding wildlife. You need some sort of comittee to say, "Hey, if your thinking of building on there and taking the natural bounty, you need to give some kind of users fee because what your using cant be replaced." Telling people to use their land efficently isn't killing wildlife, its saving it from sparsely inefficently placed buildings that ruin the landscape.

...

You actually don't need a committee to tell people what to do we just need a revolution in consciousness that would include a sophisticated understanding of ecology and the human relationship to it.

At least explain why it isn't despite the math showing it is

Clearly he never spent much time in Britain

Right. Either literally everybody, including psychopathic people, will have a revolution in consciousness, or we just do the land-value-tax thing.

Because communism can't work.

youtube.com/watch?v=qa0UAC8jYX4

But how do you implement a LVT without putting millions of households and businesses into negative equity and creating a financial crisis?

I agree with George but there are practical considerations.

Nah, my dude Albert is NazBol Gang

Mark to market and make the Jew pay.

kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/o-land-prices-are-real-wealth-or-capital.html?m=1#3
Points out some answers, but at the end of the day only a few mortgage owners would be seriously affected by this with mostly large landowners being hit. Those who did find themselves in a truly unfortunate position with the introduction of LVT could be compansated by tax credits as it would be a one time thing (though George was super against this as he thought those hoarding the land deserved to pay) though even at the worst outcomes all individuals would find themselves paid more, taxed less, and more able to find a job. LVT would also remove or at least greatly mitigate the Boom/Bust cycle: fleeingvesuvius.org/2011/06/02/why-pittsburgh-real-estate-never-crashes-the-tax-reform-that-stabilised-a-city’s-economy/
henrygeorge.org/bust.htm

Modern Georgists like Stiglitz outline the conditions Georgism works under and most Georgists are open to new transitory ideas as the economy changes and so does the public needs. The idea is that revenue after the transition is so great that all needs can be met, though the transition doesn't have to be immediate and can occur over time for the given country (Stiglitz wrote plans for different countries).

tl;dr Georgism prevents future situations where mass negative equity occurs and is more then open to transitory ideas (unless you really despise the landlords and speculators, then you don't really care about what happens to them)

Little bit of an extra study showing how for every £1 reduction in Business Rates in Enterprise Zones, rents went up by £1 so the tenant ended up paying the same total amount.

How is it possible that the Single Tax can capture *all* of the revenue required for government without any reference to government size? Say the UK government only wants to provision £200billion worth of services and the opposition party wants to provision £800billion worth of services. How can the Land Value Tax capture both? Or how can Land Value Tax just automatically earn whatever size government the country has?

As stated here , George's theorem requires certain conditions to be met to obtain an environment where all expenditures are also met, although it also works very well when those conditions are relaxed a bit. Stiglitz wrote different plans for different governments (Britain and Ireland do very well in LVT as most the flats and land is owned by a few wealthy families) and talked about some of the practical implications of the system.

Its way too much to put here, but to summarize it the land revenue generated should be enough to cover necessary public expenditures and a bit more. Your not going to be able to just buy up 1000 F-35s and expect it to work. As more land overtime is "claimed" (now by people who need it) and developed, tax revenue and general populace income increases as well. This is better then income tax because income tax suffers from dead weight loss and companies can just skirt it through multiple means (meaning loans to pay for programs). However, you can't really run from a land tax. You could try, but you would lose more profit doing so and your leaving would just equal out because your leaving your land open to other people to use.

Ttl;dr In a community with optimal population, the land rent equals the value of the community’s public goods.

If you get the chance read Henry George and Stiglitz (even if you disagree, George's works give a good reference of the time he lived in and why so many like Tolstoy became impacted by him). "The Corruption of Economics" by Mason Gaffney is also a good one (though I've only finished a portion) as it talks about why LVT wasn't and isn't implemented (politicians happen to be huge in real estate, wealthy landowners, etc.).

To clarify a bit, you could save as a company not having to pay a huge land tax but only if you sold all your excess land immediately as a buy-able price to the community. Natural resources are taxed as well since they're part of the land and your basically paying a users fee to the community, forgot to mention that.

Reminder Danny D fucking owned that faggot.

No

Sounds like average trot