Re: A question for the "Geolibertarians"
- From: "sinister" <sinister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:31:25 -0400
"S. Doo" <none@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bb9m42h9tb0av6ehg9ug59rbn9qibagn49@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 04:59:58 GMT, royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:42:47 -0500, Robert Kolker
<nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
nospam wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
No. They would be evicted and the land given to those who -can- or -do-
pay taxes. Widow Jones is not safe in the house her husband bought and
paid for 30 years prior. If Big Box Inc. can pay more in taxes Old
Widow
Jones goes out on the sidewalk along with her meager belongings.
Isn't this a land equivalent with the Medicare prescriptions drug
coverage ?
No. It has to do with eviction.
Under the Georgies the occupant of a property, even if it be for decades
can be tossed out on his his if another party can offer to pay much
higher taxes on the land which the current occupant cannot afford. That
is the dirty little secret of the Georgist agenda.
Lie. The terms of tenure are a contract no different from an
equivalent contract between a private landowner and his tenant. The
government has no right of unilateral abrogation.
So Georgism reduces to government owning all the real estate, and
allocating its use for the optimal benefit of all, as has been tried
(and continues to be) in so many places all over the world, with such
*wonderful* results.
You don't even know what "Georgism" entails.
Georgism does mean the government effectively owns the land, insofar as the
government recoups land rent on behalf of the public.
On the other hand, Georgism (more specifically), land value taxation, does
_not_ entail _control_ of land, insofar as allocation and use would be
determined by the market.
Christ, even the Chinese Communists are trying to get away from that.
You're confused. You appear to think that Georgism advocates collectivist
schemes, which in fact it does not.
.
- References:
- A question for the "Geolibertarians"
- From: Peter Bjørn Perlsø
- Re: A question for the "Geolibertarians"
- From: Peter Bjørn Perlsø
- Re: A question for the "Geolibertarians"
- From: Robert Kolker
- Re: A question for the "Geolibertarians"
- From: Robert Kolker
- Re: A question for the "Geolibertarians"
- From: royls
- Re: A question for the "Geolibertarians"
- From: S . Doo
- A question for the "Geolibertarians"
- Prev by Date: Re: Definition of "rich"?
- Next by Date: Re: Definition of "rich"?
- Previous by thread: Re: A question for the "Geolibertarians"
- Next by thread: Re: A question for the "Geolibertarians"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|