Most ¨Libertarians¨ are frauds...

Those people should pay for it with their own money instead of forcing others tondo what they want.

 

That is why I support land value taxation as the primary source of government revenue. Those who desire more government services can move to locations where those services are provided. The land values will be higher at locations where government services are plentiful, and the recipients of these services will pay for them through the land value tax system. For people who prefer fewer government services, they can move to locations where there are few government services provided and land values are much lower, therefore they will not be forced to pay for services which they do not desire.

Under the land value tax system, some communities would likely provide free health care services for local landholders. These free services would drastically increase the value of that land where these services are provided, and the landholder can pay for the services according to how much those services have increase the value of the land which the individual holds. If you don't want free health care, then you can move to a community where these services are not provided, and where land values (and the taxes associated with that value) are lower. In that way you will not be forced to pay for free health care to others, and others are not forced to live with less services than they desire.

In fact, under the land value tax system, if you move far enough away from society to where land has little to no value, then you can live completely tax free, regardless of how much production or trade you are involved in. Choices, that is the true libertarian mindset.

 

Isn't that simple.
Which land would you suggest to provide them, which means you exclude others who had the desire to live there, but do not want to pay those taxes.
The easiest and effective of providing Services is the voluntary offer by those and an consumer's tax on those Service goods or just a simple progressive taxation.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the Name of this libertarian Forum, please?

 

Yes, actually it is that simple.

"In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago."— Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in Economics (1976)

None, they can choose whatever available land they want in whatever community they want.

Market land values are determined in part by the number and quality of government services available at locations. If you want to live where these services are provided, and therefore enjoy the security they confer, then you have an obligation to pay taxes for what you take. If you don't want to pay the taxes associated with the services at a given location, then move someplace else. There is no free riding in a true libertarian society.

Land value taxes are the easiest, most efficient and fair taxes of all, because government spending is turned into land rent by the market. Government spending (perhaps on a new roadway) might drastically improve the productivity and value of nearby land parcels, but land on the other side of town might be negatively impacted. The land value tax sorts these variations out, and charges those who benefit from the services or infrastructure for their gain, while leaving those who didn't benefit from such spending untaxed for that particular service or infrastructure improvement.

 

And, not useful? Is scarcity eliminated?

 

Germany is going down in case you have not noticed , their banks own a crapload of toxic assets .
Spending in the Netherlands gone up because austerity killed their growth the UK will soon have to follow same steps .
The UK like eurozone countries are financed by USFed , with whose money you think all those bonds are bought?

 

Germany got their bad assets from where? Your point is?

 

Agreed. That is the society I would be living in if the federal government went away. Florida has free higher education through lotto, all taxes come from land and sales tax (thanks tourists! - it is lower then national average still though so keep coming), and things are fine. Mansions on the water each pay more then entire neighborhoods in working district, but that is life for you, enjoy the view. We have homestead exemptions, and sales tax exemptions on necessities, a truly poor person managing their money well would never have to pay taxes here, or very little. (Gas taxes, but they pay for roads)

But then the federal government comes in and says "I need my money, I am coming for my 20-40% and I am taking it!" That is basically the amount an average person pays on their mortgage. Way too much.

 

This actually touches on the "social contract" of government. There are some "libertarians" that don't believe in the "social contract" but they tend to be more "anarchist" than "libertarian" in their political ideology. Their argument tends to be that they didn't personally agree to the "social contract" of government but cannot deny that their ancestors did. The "social contract" is very similar to a "corporate charter" and citizens are stockholders. A person that inherits stock is subjected to the conditions of the corporate charter just like the natural born citizen is subjected to the conditions of the "social contract" that establishes government. Of course an "immigrant" consents directly to the Social Contract by their immigration.

Of course in the United States were actually subjected to two fundamental social contracts which are our State Constitution that only applies to our State and the US Constitution that applies to all States. We have lesser social contracts as represented by City Charters but all of government in the United States, and the actions thereof, are based upon the Social Contract.

For the person the primary social contract is the State Constitution and the US Constitution is actually an extension of the State Constitutions as the US Constitution is under the authority of the States and not the Federal government. Only States can ratify US Constitutional Amendments. The States created the US Constitution and the federal government and the States can modify or even abolish the US Constitution and federal government as the States have ultimate control over it under Article V of the US Constitution.

Back to the point, under the conditions of the Social Contracts (Constitution(s)) the People can provide for their own welfare using the institution of the government. I won't get into specifics but overall the States were delegated to be responsible for the welfare of the People as the States are the fundamental government of the People. The Federal government was created to be the government of the States, by the States, and is not the government of the People.

Libertarians point out this fact which is why they generally oppose federal welfare for the People but not all federal welfare is directed at the People. For example, I have a hard time arguing agianst Medicaid because it is a federal program for the States and not directly for the People. The States administer Medicaid and all the US government does is provide part of the funding to the States.

Local and State government can pretty much do as they please so long as the People authorize it under the direct "social contract" of the People. Some self professed libertarians oppose this but to do so they have to oppose the "social contract" which fundamentally makes them anarchists because the only conditions where a social contract doesn't exist is either under anarchy or totalitarianism and they're not totalitarians.

 

This is incorrect.

In a free market economy "commodities are exchanged for commodities" and "labor is exchanged for commodities" and "money" that was a commonly accepted commodity was created to facilitate these exchanges. There have been numerous forms of "money" that have ranged from sea shells to tulips but historically gold and silver were determined to be the best form of "money" because they are a limited commodity that have a high value because of the many uses for them. Gold, for example, has more possible commercial uses than any other metal because of the properties of the metal itself. It isn't used because of its rarity and instead inferior metals are used as a replacement but if "cost and availabilty" were no issue gold would be used more than any other metal in manufacturing.

Before the creation of currency we had the creation of "lawful money" that were tokens (coins) produced by governments where the weight and alloy content of the token was certified by the government to prevent fraud in the exchanges in a free market economy. These tokens received a designation (demomination) that established their relative value related to each other (e.g. a $10 gold coin contained 1/2 the gold that a $20 gold coin contained and a $1 silver coin had a relative value to a $10 gold coin based upon its relative demand to gold in commerce) so that there would be no preference in which coins were being used in the exchange processes.

Currency was created later as a "promissory note" for the "money" being held by the entity issuing the promissory note. It was a convenience for those engaging in commerce as it was lighter and easier to carry than the actual money. It was easier to carry five $100 bills than it was to carry (25) $20 gold coins.

Later governments created "fiat" currency that was not a promissory note that could not be redeemed in money. Many still say they're promissory notes, such as a Federal Reserve note that are even required by law to be redeemable in "lawful money" but where the issuer of the note doesn't have the "money" and refuses to redeem the promissory note because it can't. Under "contract law" it is criminal fraud to issue a promissory note with no intention of redeeming the note but contract law is not being enforced by the US government related to the "fiat" currency being issued by the Federal Reserve.

Any economy based upon the violation of "contract law" is going to fail eventually. Contract law must be enforced by government and Libertarians that point this out are often condemned by others but the fact is that the US ecomony is going to eventually collapse because the violation of contract law is not being prosecuted by the US government. The problem for those condemning the "Libertarian" position is that the Libertarians can point to the fact that "Federal Reserve notes" have already lost over 97% of their value and eventually will lose 100% of their value becoming completely worthless. Only "commodities" retain value and "money" is a commodity.

 

Direct democracy is "mob rule". Thanks to the Founders, the "United States of America" isn't a direct democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic....much to the chagrin of authoritarian state collectivists....who would like nothing more than unlimited authority to vote themselves a "fair and equitable" portion of "Heirhead" Peter's income and assets.

possibly suggesting that the progressive left's seeming bent towards Hobbesian philosophy may be projective.....a telling indictment on their OWN covetously greedy barbarism.

but what do I know....

 

To an extent. An entire system of direct democracy is a very bad idea, even though it seems like a good one on paper. But certain elements of direct democracy, like referendums, are good to have.

 

We should also note that we are a "federated" government which is where the term "federal government" originates. The United States of America is the federation (joining) of independent sovereign States under a single "national" banner. The independent sovereign States voluntarily "United" together under the US Constitution which is the basis for the very term "United States of America" that represents all of the States.

There are some that, without thinking, would dispute this but it can be proven as being a fact. Under Article V of the US Constitution 2/3rds of States can call for a Constitutional Convention and based upon approval of 3/4ths of the States the United States Constitution can be repealed and the United States government abolished and all 50 States would automatically become independent sovereign nations.

The States created the United States of America and the States can abolish the United States of America and become independent sovereign nations any time they choose to do so as long as 3/4ths of them agree to it as provided for in the United States Constitution.

This is an interesting fact considering the financial hole the federal government is creating with deficit spending. The national debt imposes a tax burden on future Americans and the greater the debt the greater the burden. If current government creates too much debt and that imposes too high of a tax burden on future Americans those future Americans can simply desolve the United States and refuse to be responsible for the debt. The national debt could literally lead to the end of the United States because we're imposing a huge financial obligation on future Americans that they may not be willing to accept.

This is a problem with Republicans in general and the Tea Party movement specifically as neither support paying for the current financial obligations of the US government. They want taxes cut today based upon mythical future reductions in expendatures. I need only point to Paul Ryan's House budget that called for deficit spending virtually as far as the eye can see. Democrats don't offer much more but at least they're calling for more tax revenue which is absolutely necessary. If we could get Democrats to also advocate actually reducing spending as opposed to offering mythical future savings that won't ever happen we might be able to get the national fiscal house in order.

As a Libertarian and fiscal conservative I support the following:

1) Pay for authorized expendatures.
2) Revise both our State and Federal tax codes so that all Americans have the same tax burden relative to income and then increase taxation if/as necessary to pay for the authorized expendatures.
3) Work to reduce future expendatures first by limiting expendatures to what Americans need (e.g. eliminate wasting tax dollars on US foreign imperialism) and next by addressing actual problems in America as opposed to providing bandaids that merely cost more and more more money over time even if that imposes additional short-term expendatures for a long term reduction.
4) Work to reduce the needs of Americans that require taxation and expendatures to mitigate.
5) When the expendatures are reduced then reduce the taxation as opposed to finding more ways to spend the income of Americans.

 

As long as state "constitutions" are equipped with distinct line in the sand that cannot be crossed by popular vote (firmly footed in a respect for individual natural rights and natural law as I suggested in post # 40),
and have a strong judiciary to protect the their constitution's "do not cross" barriers, I find no issues with referendums.

But what generally happens is judges are shopped and appointed (or voted in) on ideological grounds...which permits the barriers to be incrementally pushed back ("frog boiling")

 

Concur with most....to the bolded, though....interminably calling for more and more revenue without seriously addressing their myriad unsustainable "fairness and social justice" institutions
is saddling future generations with the same obligations that they haven't approved and may not be willing to accept, as well.

 

On paper a Constitutional Republic looks good on paper but we've found it has problems as well because we allow the fox to guard the chicken coop.

The only way a Constitutional Republic can actually work is if the Constitution is strictly enforced but our current process of determining of the Constitution has been violated is based upon simple majority rule. I've read many US Supreme Court split decisions where a law or action of government was determined by be Constitutional but where the "minority" decision was that it was unconstitutional presented very valid arguments. In short I believe we have laws and actions of our government of dubious Constitutionality based upon valid arguments as to why they are unconstitutional. We don't have "strict" enforcement of the US Constitution but instead we have "relative" enforcement of the Constitution.

I have previously addressed this in a prior thread I created.

http://www.politicalforum.com/civil...amendment-protect-our-inalienable-rights.html

If we want strict enforcement then that can only be achieved if "constitutionality" is based upon a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court that a law or act of government is Constitutional. That is strict enforcement (or at least the best we can pragmatically hope for). A majority decision reflects "relative" enforcement and politicans have exploited their authority based upon relative enforcement of the US Constitution and any violation of the Constitution based upon relative enforcement violates the "social contract" of the People of the Nation.

 

Personally, I think we've given far too much power to our black-robed mini-tyrants.

 

I can provide a simple summary of where both Democrats and Republicans have it wrong.

Typically Democrats address symptoms of a problem with spending while Republicans ignore the problems completely. I can provide examples of both that I've used in the past.

In the 1930's a serious problem was identified in that about 1/2 of Americans "did not invest during their working career to build the personaly assets necessary to generate income" when they were too old to work. The Democrats, under FDR, didn't address the problem that was the failure of 1/2 of Americans to invest and build the personal assets necessary to provide an income when they were too old to work. Instead they created the Social Security welfare program which addressed the symptom which was the lack of income for those too old to work. The problem remained because the problem wasn't addressed so in the 1860's the Democrats under LBJ identified the problem that 1/2 of the American People "did not invest during their working career to build the personaly assets necessary to generate income" to pay for health insurance when they were too old to work so they created Medicare to provide the "health insurance" the people couldn't afford. If instead of addressing the "symptoms" with welfare the Democrats under FBR would have created a mandatory private investment programs that build personal assets for the individual then we wouldn't have or need Social Security and Medicare today. I'm a Libertarian and I don't like government messing with my money but I can accept a mandatory private retirement investment accounts for the individual because the money still belongs to the individual and it does prevent them from becoming a tax burden on me when they get old.

Republicans today are proposing cuts to "welfare" spending which is merely ignoring the problem that poverty exists. People will go hungry and become homeless under Republican proposals. We cannot cut funding without first reducing the the need based upon poverty but Republicans really don't care about poverty. Republicans are concerned about the wealthy and not the poor.

Anyway, we could go back and forth between Democrats addressing bandaid fixes addressing the symptoms of a problem as opposed to fixing the problems and Republicans ignoring the problems completely.

 

Well....there HAS to be a system in place that says "NO...that runs afoul of the foundational rules"...

but human beings are quite fallible, and many unfortunately possess idiosyncratic "degrees of larceny"...or a "purchase price" that outweighs their personal morals and ethics, and overrules the risks associated with being "caught" in a compromising position.

which is what we're witnessing with all these obviously suppressed scandals that are just coming to light.... specifically, sustaining political power through reelection was determined to be more important than the risks associated with open and honest assessment..or revelation.... of what may have proved to be systemic, perhaps criminal failure of leadership on the eve of an election.

(Edit: I can, if pressed, launch into a screed about what I see as a systemic, decades long "movement" by the "means to a state collectivist end" progressive left to "subjectify" morality and "situationalize" ethics, while advancing a "living document" narrative in regards to the foundational rules...but that may run a little long, and not be suitable for the thread's current topic)

 

Actually I take the opposite position. Any Supreme Court Justice should have the authority to declare a law or action of government to be Unconstitutional. That is the power we need to give to all nine Supreme Court Justices. We can live without any laws or actions of goverment that are of dubious Constitutionality.

 

Preaching to the choir....your conversing with someone who would plan a vacation around the occasion of watching DC burned to the ground.

 

With all their "warts", Shiva

 

Perhaps the most important atribute of a political forum is not to convince those that oppose one's political opinions or to support those that agree with them but instead to influence the person that is undecided.

As I've noted I'm a pragmatic libertarian. I am aware of many historical injustices for example and once an injustice is committed it doesn't simply disappear or be reversed. It can only be addressed by pragmatic solutions. As I noted I don't like the government messing with my money but as a pragmatic libertarian knowing that 1/2 of the people will NOT take personal responsibility for their financial future when they become too old to work I can endorse a mandated private investment program that forces a person to invest so that they don't become a tax burden for society. I cannot simply ignore them and let them starve or go homeless because private charities don't have the resources to provide for them.

I look at poverty and know that the primary cause is racial and gender discrimination that denies equality of opportunity and that, to me, is a violation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. I know that our government cannot "fix" the invidious discrimination based upon individual prejudice and, to a great extent is limited to mitigating the effects of the violation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. But isn't that something that was advocated by the Declaration of Independence?

The government is there to protect our Inalienable Rights and if it cannot prevent or directly the violation of those Rights then doesn't it have an obligation to mitigate the effects of the violation? I wish that Affirmative Action didn't exist but I cannot argue agianst it. It doesn't stop the invidious discrimination but, in a very minor way, attempts to mitigate it. It doesn't create reverse-discrimination as there is no evidence that "white males" are being discriminated against in the United States but there is extensive evidence that blacks and women are discriminated against. I want to end Affirmative Action by ending the racial and gender discrimination created by bigoted individual prejudice that exists extensively in the United States today. When individual prejudice ends then the need to mitigate the effects of that prejudice that violate the Inalienable Rights of the Person can also come to an end. Address the PROBLEM!

Today I have a problem in addressing the "Ownership of Land" from a libertarian perspective. I've long since come to understand that we can't literally own the Earth. We can establishe a Right to Use the Land based upon the expendature of labor but that Right of Use is limited. I can accept that a farmer expending labor in growing crops has a Right of Use of the Land because they are expending labor on that land which gives them the Right of Use but what if they stop farming the land? How long does that labor expended last? 5 years, 10 year, 100 years? At some point the "labor" previously expended runs out. I also look at land "ownership" granted by the government but the "government" doesn't have any Rights like the Right of Property and cannot logically give title to land to a person. It can recognize the ownership but cannot give away that which it doesn't own. The granting of land titles was based upon "Divine Right of Kings" where the "King owned all of the land because God gave it to the King" and I don't buy into that. So what if a person holds title to land that was never extablished based upon the labor of the individual? For me it represents land stolen from the "people" and even if the person purchased the land they are in possession of "stolen property" and don't actually "own the Right to Use the Land" from a libertarian perspective. Ownership cannot be established by theft.

These are predominately unresolved "libertarian" considerations based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person that even I don't have an answer to today but they are issues that eventually must be addressed based upon the libertarian philosophy.

 

To your "Geoist" problem....there is no such thing as outright ownership of land. Property taxes....both "unimproved" and "improved"....and tax assessments that increase along with "government (taxpayer) infrastructure enhanced" value increases ensure such.

For example, back in the late sixties, the local corridor that Interstate 10 ultimately inhabited was "unimproved land" and taxed as such....which.... as no one really cared about accessing pasture land, and no one really felt their "rights" to access the land were being "violated"... was a pittance....

but once the "exit exchanges" were in place, the value of the adjacent land increased exponentially, as did its assessed tax value. (which "repays" the taxpayers, as it were). This includes the land under businesses, and the land under housing developments that sprung up because of the newly improved, conveniently accessible environment. and this is generally when the "geoist" argument begins to take shape, and claims to "rights violations" are made.

 

I'm sure that you and I will never see eye-to-eye on the question of land rights, but I am glad to see you questioning the status quo. Perhaps someday a compromise will be struck. Anything that would make land more accessible/affordable to potential producers, who simply want to put land to more productive use, would be a welcome sight to me.