[Truth To Power]

Some people are immune to reason, which is fine except those people that are immune to reason are exactly the people that are fucking everything up.

Right. Evil must be justified, and the only way to justify it is by lies. Fact and logic -- reason -- can refute lies, so servants of evil have to refuse to know the facts that prove they are serving evil. Even the most vicious and depraved genocidal lunatics always find some way to lie to themselves that they are not really evil.

We can't reason with them which means either we continue to present our posteriors for their pleasure or we start delivering hard lessons in the language they do understand, violence. Sorry chaps but I am being seduced by the dark side of the force.

Oh, don't apologize. If history shows anything, it is that the privileged prefer to perish in blood and flame, and to watch their children slaughtered before their eyes, rather than relinquish even the smallest portion of their unjust advantages. There is a reason for this. Greed -- unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money" -- is indeed the root of all manner of evil. Privilege is the legal enshrinement of greed as a societal god, on whose altar justice must be sacrificed, so the privileged consequently come to embody evil. They rationalize, excuse, defend and justify it. Don't believe me? Look around PF, especially right here in the Libertarianism forum.

[DrSteveBrule]

I'm a fan of the public goods and services that the state makes available to all as commons and I am happy to contribute through taxation. When the state taxes me it violates my negative rights and treats me as a means to an end. When it uses that money to build roads, schools and hospitals it grants me positive rights and treats me as an end in myself by granting me access to transportation, education and healthcare free at the point of use.

I am also a fan of democracy. When the state makes decisions about how to spend tax revenue it is open to input and feedback from the population. When a billionaire decides to donate money to charity s/he can do as s/he pleases without taking anyone elses opinion into consideration. Libertarians wish to live in a plutocracy where spending decisions on healthcare, education, etc. are made by wealthy without input from the many.

Also the rich would have made little money if they had no access to the goods and services provided by the state as well as the positive externalities.

1) Most libertarians (with the exception of AnCaps who really aren't libertarians) acknowledge that a government is the only means to reconcile the fruits of their labor. Even Rand realized this.

2) The government must be able to use those funds efficiently and to deliver on it's promises. History has shown that this is not always true. In fact, time after time, leaders who are left unchecked have used the power and resources granted to them to benefit themselves instead of benefiting their nation. While some other libertarians may disagree with me on this, I personally believe that free market components, state offered services and government regulations can coexist in some areas in order to set benchmarks for each other, and to ensure that they all function as efficiently as possible.

3) A free market allows everyone to make a choice in how money is spent. Buying a product is akin to voting, you are putting your funds into the goods that a company makes because you have decided that it fits your needs and wants.

AFAIK, I can understand your viewpoint that state offered services have the potential to do good. However, I find your assumption that the government will use their negative violation of your rights in order to convert them into positive rights troubling. One does not need to look far in order to see how easy it is for any government organization to overstep it's boundaries.

Police departments are supposed to be there for the protection of common interests, but with civil asset forfeiture and speed traps, they have become a revenue stream for local governments who wish to enrich themselves, while the war on drugs ensures that they will be the will of the prison industrial complex that lobbies our representatives.

The VA is supposed to care for the individuals who choose to devote their lives to public service, but they end up fabricating records and logs in order to hide their own ineptitude.

[Rich]

AFAIK, I can understand your viewpoint that state offered services have the potential to do good. However, I find your assumption that the government will use their negative violation of your rights in order to convert them into positive rights troubling. One does not need to look far in order to see how easy it is for any government organization to overstep it's boundaries.

There are no rights without government, there is only opinions. Take the East Texas oil field. In my opinion: that is a common natural resource which as a member of humanity, I'm entitled to a share of, that has been stolen and monopolised by criminal scum. However opinions don't count for shit without the backing of a state. And luckily for the criminals who are intent on pissing away this hundred million year old resource their opinions are largely backed by the united States government. The US government is a very powerful government and its sovereignty over the United States is recognised by nearly all the other governments in the world.

What is it about resources are limited that Libertarians find so hard to understand? Start with land. Aside from a few rocks and the polar regions all land has been monopolised under government jurisdiction. And even within such places as the united States, the Argentine and Chile where White Europeans had a year zero and exterminated the previous indigenous population, all the best places: such as natural harbours, fertile temperate plains and navigable rivers systems have been long since monopolised: ie stolen from the commons under the guise of so called private property rights.

Libertarianism, or classical liberalism was an ideology that came into being to justify mass murder, genocide, slavery, rape and terror. The Catholic Church worked over many hundred of years to abolish slavery. They tried to resist its reintroduction. It was slavers and slave investors like Thomas Jefferson and John Locke that sought to over come the sentimental Christian notions of human rights and introduce an unlimited rational murderous exploitation.

[Truth To Power]

There are no rights without government, there is only opinions.

Rights clearly antedate governments. It is to secure pre-existing rights that governments are instituted among men. Unfortunately, the exact character of those rights has been poorly understood, and so governments have more often abrogated than secured them.

Take the East Texas oil field. In my opinion: that is a common natural resource which as a member of humanity, I'm entitled to a share of, that has been stolen and monopolised by criminal scum.

Well, by greedy takers, anyway.

What is it about resources are limited that Libertarians find so hard to understand?

Everything is limited -- except the dishonesty of apologists for greed, privilege and injustice, of course. The distinctive character of natural resources is that they are not merely limited but FIXED in supply. So unlike products of labor, which are also limited -- but not fixed -- natural resources are not supplied to the market by their owners, whose role is limited to charging others for permission to use what would otherwise have been available anyway. Adam Smith gave the example of the landowner charging soap makers for permission to gather kelp from the natural kelp beds accessible from his land. His role is purely to take, and to contribute nothing whatever in return.

Start with land. Aside from a few rocks and the polar regions all land has been monopolised under government jurisdiction. And even within such places as the united States, the Argentine and Chile where White Europeans had a year zero and exterminated the previous indigenous population, all the best places: such as natural harbours, fertile temperate plains and navigable rivers systems have been long since monopolised: ie stolen from the commons under the guise of so called private property rights.

Right. Private property in land is the elephant in the room that no one wants to mention, let alone tackle.

Libertarianism, or classical liberalism was an ideology that came into being to justify mass murder, genocide, slavery, rape and terror. The Catholic Church worked over many hundred of years to abolish slavery. They tried to resist its reintroduction. It was slavers and slave investors like Thomas Jefferson and John Locke that sought to over come the sentimental Christian notions of human rights and introduce an unlimited rational murderous exploitation.

But to be fair, the Catholic Church also viciously opposed justice in possession and use of land, perceiving that the value of its immense landholdings was in jeopardy. Father Edward McGlynn was censured and excommunicated between 1887 and 1892 on charges of disobedience and suspicion of socialist leanings, due to his support of Henry George and the Single Tax. The Catholic Church is to this day hand in glove with some of the greediest, most vicious and rapacious landowners in the world in predominantly Catholic countries like Guatemala, Brazil and the Philippines, where landowners routinely order the assassinations of land reform activists. Is it an accident that the Church's landholdings in those countries are also very large?

[DrSteveBrule]

There are no rights without government, there is only opinions. Take the East Texas oil field. In my opinion: that is a common natural resource which as a member of humanity, I'm entitled to a share of, that has been stolen and monopolised by criminal scum. However opinions don't count for shit without the backing of a state. And luckily for the criminals who are intent on pissing away this hundred million year old resource their opinions are largely backed by the united States government. The US government is a very powerful government and its sovereignty over the United States is recognised by nearly all the other governments in the world.

What is it about resources are limited that Libertarians find so hard to understand? Start with land. Aside from a few rocks and the polar regions all land has been monopolised under government jurisdiction. And even within such places as the united States, the Argentine and Chile where White Europeans had a year zero and exterminated the previous indigenous population, all the best places: such as natural harbours, fertile temperate plains and navigable rivers systems have been long since monopolised: ie stolen from the commons under the guise of so called private property rights.

As far as I know, most Libertarians do not support a repeal of property taxes. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics knows that natural resources are limited, hence why a system (property rights obtained via taxation and money) is necessary. How else can you distribute land and resources to those who are able to utilize it to it's fullest potential?

You are entitled to a share of that oil field, but do you know how to refine crude oil into petroleum or diesel? Do you have the wealth or resources to do so? I certainly don't, and I would guess that you don't either. Recognizing that neither of us have the means to use that oil field to it's fullest potential, a company steps in and pays property taxes to a government that represents us, which in turn allows them to extract crude oil.

[Rich]

I don't disagree with a market economy. What I oppose is the moralistic claims of Libertarians. As long as people throw moralistic stones I will throw them back. Political economy is a compromise between power holders. Universal adult suffrage democracy works as a reasonable decision making proxy for power holders.

[Truth To Power]

As far as I know, most Libertarians do not support a repeal of property taxes.

Feudal "libertarians," who are more accurately thought of as "propertarians," seek abolition of all forms of taxation that attenuate property rights. For them, human beings are fundamentally property owners, and each individual's rights are delineated by how much property he owns. Some even consider the property rights of slave owners superior to the liberty rights of the slaves.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics knows that natural resources are limited, hence why a system (property rights obtained via taxation and money) is necessary. How else can you distribute land and resources to those who are able to utilize it to it's fullest potential?

Hong Kong has done very nicely by leasing land to users.

You are entitled to a share of that oil field, but do you know how to refine crude oil into petroleum or diesel? Do you have the wealth or resources to do so? I certainly don't, and I would guess that you don't either. Recognizing that neither of us have the means to use that oil field to it's fullest potential, a company steps in and pays property taxes to a government that represents us, which in turn allows them to extract crude oil.

But they should pay the full amount that a competitor would be willing to pay for access to the same resource. Instead, they are allowed to extract the resource for a relative pittance.

[lucky]

But they should pay the full amount that a competitor would be willing to pay for access to the same resource.

So you want the government to rent out land through some kind of auction. For what kind of time periods would these land leases be auctioned for? 1 day? 1 year? 100 years? Or perhaps with terms negotiated individually rather than through a public auction? In the latter case, could you pre-pay the government for an infinite lease in exchange for a perpetual bond?

BTW, I encourage you to describe your ideas in a dedicated thread, rather than through bits and pieces scattered in various random other threads.

[Phred]

Take the East Texas oil field. In my opinion: that is a common natural resource which as a member of humanity, I'm entitled to a share of, that has been stolen and monopolised by criminal scum.

How many karats of opal are you entitled to from mines at Coober Pedy? How many grams of gold are you entitled to from the mines in the Dominican Republic? How many board-feet of old-growth oak are you entitled to from the foothills of the Urals?

Who is charged with the task of delivering your share of opals from Australia to wherever you live? How is this person compensated?


Phred

[Truth To Power]

But they should pay the full amount that a competitor would be willing to pay for access to the same resource.

So you want the government to rent out land through some kind of auction.

Right. Pretty much like the current land market, but with the proceeds going to the source of the value instead of being taken by parasites, and no perpetual transfers.

For what kind of time periods would these land leases be auctioned for? 1 day? 1 year? 100 years?

That would depend on the contemplated land use, existing and proposed investments in improvements, etc. The minimum term would probably be a year, for land where little or no investment in fixed improvements was contemplated (however, with modern financial technology, payments could be monthly or even weekly). Maximum maybe 50 years. The lease amounts would be indexed to local GDP, reflecting the fact that aggregate land rent tends to track GDP.

Or perhaps with terms negotiated individually rather than through a public auction?

More likely a kind of generally available insurance, whereby paying a scaled premium would obtain a longer lease term with capped rent increases.

In the latter case, could you pre-pay the government for an infinite lease in exchange for a perpetual bond?

No, because the payments would be indexed to GDP. IMO it's rarely a good idea to grant lease terms of more than about 50 years. That's long enough to recoup any plausible investment in improvements, and the future becomes radically unpredictable over longer time frames than that. Government has no business entering into agreements with such long time frames on behalf of citizens yet unborn.

BTW, I encourage you to describe your ideas in a dedicated thread, rather than through bits and pieces scattered in various random other threads.

The question of land, the abrogation of liberty rights inherent in private landed property, and the welfare subsidy to landowners pervade all of economics, public policy, and political philosophy. I think it's more useful to explain those relationships wherever they are relevant.

[Truth To Power]

Take the East Texas oil field. In my opinion: that is a common natural resource which as a member of humanity, I'm entitled to a share of, that has been stolen and monopolised by criminal scum.

How many karats of opal are you entitled to from mines at Coober Pedy? How many grams of gold are you entitled to from the mines in the Dominican Republic? How many board-feet of old-growth oak are you entitled to from the foothills of the Urals?

Who is charged with the task of delivering your share of opals from Australia to wherever you live? How is this person compensated?

Why even bother posting such silly garbage? Have you never heard of "money"? The miners are also entitled to a share of the opals and gold they produce, the loggers to a share of the lumber they produce, are they not? But nobody other than a fool contemplates paying them in kind.

Those who want forcibly to exclude others from more than their rightful share of natural opportunities that would otherwise be accessible must justly compensate the community of those whom they exclude. It is then the duty and function of the community's representative, democratic government, to ensure that all are equally compensated in turn, through protection of their individual rights and free, secure access to enough of the available opportunities of their choice to sustain themselves. That is the only possible route to genuine liberty, justice, and equal rights for all.

[lucky]

IMO it's rarely a good idea to grant lease terms of more than about 50 years. That's long enough to recoup any plausible investment in improvements, and the future becomes radically unpredictable over longer time frames than that.

I see. So in 50 years you're basically planning to seize all buildings built on that land, and auction them off in another public auction.

This is incredibly counter-productive. As the deadline approaches, the individual incentive to invest decreases, in fact one would want to consume the real estate capital down to nothing before the deadline, have all buildings completely fall apart at the deadline.

You seem to recognize that, since you're pushing the deadline so far away into obscurity of 50 years, so that the unreasonableness of it is hidden in the shadows of far away future and "unpredictability". But if the future is so unpredictable, why plan for something so destructive in that future now at all?

[Phred]

Have you never heard of "money"? The miners are also entitled to a share of the opals and gold they produce, the loggers to a share of the lumber they produce, are they not?

Okay then, how many dollars am I entitled to from the sale of opals mined this week at Coober Pedy? How many dollars am I entitled to from the sale of the gold mined last year in the Dominican Republic? How many dollars am I entitled to from the sale of old-growth oak harvested from the foothills of the Urals in November of 2014? Who collects the money from the opal miners, the gold miners, and the lumberjacks? Do I get this money quarterly? Once a year?

Those who want forcibly to exclude others from more than their rightful share of natural opportunities that would otherwise be accessible must justly compensate the community of those whom they exclude.

So what is my just compensation for being excluded from mining opals in Coober Pedy?

It is then the duty and function of the community's representative, democratic government, to ensure that all are equally compensated in turn…

So in your ideal society some government functionary in a government ministry in Canberra would be stroking me a check every so often? And her counterpart in Moscow would be doing the same, as would some clerk in Santo Domingo?


Phred

[Truth To Power]

IMO it's rarely a good idea to grant lease terms of more than about 50 years. That's long enough to recoup any plausible investment in improvements, and the future becomes radically unpredictable over longer time frames than that.

I see. So in 50 years you're basically planning to seize all buildings built on that land, and auction them off in another public auction.

No. Why do you believe you have to make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written? At the end of 50 years, the lease can be renewed, but at the terms then available in the market. If the owner of the improvements doesn't like those terms, he can sell his improvements to someone who does like the available terms. Or if he thought the 50-year term might not be long enough, he could renegotiate it after 30 years, say, at the terms then available in the market.

Are you unaware that lots of buildings are built on leased land -- including the Empire State Building -- and no such result as you claim ever happens?

This is incredibly counter-productive.

No, it's mostly just incredibly dishonest of you to claim it is my proposal.

As the deadline approaches, the individual incentive to invest decreases, in fact one would want to consume the real estate capital down to nothing before the deadline, have all buildings completely fall apart at the deadline.

No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up about what I have plainly written. The improvements remain the property of the leaseholder. If those improvements remain appropriate to the site, they still have use value, and there would be no reason not to keep them in good repair, to preserve his investment. If the improvements are no longer appropriate to the site, then it would be economically efficient to let them depreciate through use, so that minimal value would be lost when they were demolished and replaced with more appropriate improvements. My system therefore results in superior economic efficiency and optimal use of sites.

You seem to recognize that, since you're pushing the deadline so far away into obscurity of 50 years, so that the unreasonableness of it is hidden in the shadows of far away future and "unpredictability".

No, you are just making absurd and dishonest accusations with no basis in fact, logic or economics. 50 years is about the maximum amount of time required to amortize an investment in long-lived improvements like ferro-concrete office buildings: no competent developer is going to make a business plan based on operational returns to be obtained more than 50 years in the future.

But if the future is so unpredictable, why plan for something so destructive in that future now at all?

It's not destructive, as proved above; and it is realistic and responsible to plan for the unpredictability of the distant future, and not pretend you can bind the society of the distant future to arrangements that seem good now.

[Truth To Power]

Have you never heard of "money"? The miners are also entitled to a share of the opals and gold they produce, the loggers to a share of the lumber they produce, are they not?

Okay then, how many dollars am I entitled to from the sale of opals mined this week at Coober Pedy?

If you are a member of that society, divide the value recovered by the number of members. That's your share -- which you can enjoy by making use of your free, secure access to the resulting publicly funded services and infrastructure.

How many dollars am I entitled to from the sale of the gold mined last year in the Dominican Republic? How many dollars am I entitled to from the sale of old-growth oak harvested from the foothills of the Urals in November of 2014?

See above. Your society can't be responsible for compensating you for what other societies do, any more than our government can prosecute crimes committed in other countries.

Who collects the money from the opal miners, the gold miners, and the lumberjacks? Do I get this money quarterly? Once a year?

It is recovered by the community of those deprived of the resource, and you have continuous access to the resulting benefits through your free, secure tenure on enough of the available good land of your choice to access economic opportunity.

Those who want forcibly to exclude others from more than their rightful share of natural opportunities that would otherwise be accessible must justly compensate the community of those whom they exclude.

So what is my just compensation for being excluded from mining opals in Coober Pedy?

Your equal per capita share of the market value of the privilege of extracting the resource, which you access through equal, free, secure land tenure.

It is then the duty and function of the community's representative, democratic government, to ensure that all are equally compensated in turn…

So in your ideal society some government functionary in a government ministry in Canberra would be stroking me a check every so often? And her counterpart in Moscow would be doing the same, as would some clerk in Santo Domingo?

No. That's obviously absurd, which is why you had to make it up.

Sovereign countries have neither the authority nor the duty to meddle in other countries' affairs, or to compensate their own citizens for deprivations committed by people in those countries. In any case, it's pretty much a wash for the most part. You don't get compensation for resource deprivations in other countries, but you also don't have to share the benefits of your own country's resources with people in those countries. There is a certain level of injustice in that some countries are richly endowed with resources (oil is the obvious example) while others are not, but that is largely an accident of history. We can't undo history, and we can't really do anything about the results without some kind of massive war to bring all the world's resources under the authority of one just and democratic government, which is probably impossible for the foreseeable future. But the fact that we can't make justice universal is not a reason we shouldn't make our own societies more just.