Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Taxes: In Defense Of Taxation

Rate this topic


Oakes

Recommended Posts

Guest jrshep

My bold. This is not my view nor ever was. We all have the right to own land, but only so far as we don't infringe on the equal rights of others. So, I do believe in the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness :lol:

It is exactly your view, and your further comment affirms it. There's a discussion on another thread as to whether or not a parrot which "says" "2 + 2 = 4" has stated a truth. For myself, I'd at least ascribe a bit of honesty, metaphorically, to the parrot; at least it doesn't pretend to know what it has "said," nor pretend that it hasn't "said" what it has. You however make a mockery even of parrots. What? One can own land but only if others too own it equally? If everyone owns it, no one owns it. But then, you know that, and that's why your defending the enslavement of all to all.

From your quote of George, "LAND: The entire material universe exclusive of people and their products."

You've made it clear that such is your view. So tell me young comrade, just how can one be said to own improvements to anything at all when one can't own the material, "land," that they are made from? What do you tell the farmer (just for one example out of the millions available)? "This land is not yours comrade citizens, it belongs to all of us. If you don't like that, you're free to take your improvements and go somewhere else. Just leave the "land" here!"

You may believe in many things, but you emphatically do not believe in the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Without property rights, most importantly including the right to own "land," we have no rights at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oakes, Let me try to clarrify this issue as best I can. Please give it the attention it needs to be fully understood, it contains a lot. Enjoy :lol:.

Let me introduce two relevent concepts discussed in Ayn Rand's essay, "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" which appears in her non-fiction book "Philosophy: Who Needs It". These two concepts are metaphysical facts and man-made facts.

The essence of the distinction between these two concepts is that a metaphysical fact is neccesary (it had to be, given the nature of nature), whereas a man-made fact is chosen (it didn't have to be, it is the result of man's interaction with nature).

Now here is your definition of land:

Land refers to the entire material universe excluding humans and their products. Thus, it includes not just 3-D space, but natural resources such as air, water, minerals, etc., as they exist in their natural state.
In other words, you are designating all of these as metaphysical given material, inherent in nature and not dependent on man's interaction with nature. From here on I will speak about metaphysical given material, so keep in mind that what is true of metaphysically given material is true of land (both in the traditional sense of land and in the sense with which you define it).

Man cannot survive unless he interacts with the metaphysically given. Man aquires the right to the recombination of the metaphysically given. Before man can declare something as his property, he must do something with it. Unowned property is a metaphysical given material that no man has yet interacted with, that no man has yet altered, and thus that no man yet owns as property.

You raise the question: "How far must you go before the land is justifiably yours?" I will extend this question to ask "How far must someone go before any metaphysically given material is justfiably theirs?" The answer is only after that material is used as an ingredient in the creation of a value used for that man's purposes. In other words, once it's status is converted from the metaphysically given to the man-made.

For example, if you are dealing with an unowned plot of land and you lay yourself down on it and go to sleep, you can claim that the space with which you occupy is your property for the duration that you occupy it. You can claim it as property because you are using it as an "ingredient" for an extremely primitive bed. However, I would claim that the moment you get up and leave, the space that you had previously occupied returns to the status of metaphysically given material since you left it as you found it as though you had altered in the first place. You used it as a temporary ingredient.

If you wanted to assert a more permanent claim to ownership, you would need to use the metaphysically given as a more permanent ingredient. If you had gathered a bunch of sticks and constructed a comfy nest and then slept in it, you would still be able to declare that space as your property since it is still being used as an ingredient in a man-made material, specifically your man-made material.

Now if you are some nomad wanderer (for instance a Native-American), and in durring your wandering, all previously unowned space is snatched up and built on by other men who prefer a non-nomadic and more stable place of residence, then you are left with one option. You must survive by permision from those who now own the land.

You say:

In order to exercise your right to life, you need to exist in some area of space. But you cannot do that if land is in fixed supply, and all of it is already owned, without being compelled to pay a land-owner. What this boils down to is, involuntary servitude.

You do need to exist in some area of space in order to live, and you can't do so unless you either own some space yourself or gain permission to use space owned by someone else. But this does not boil down to involuntary servitude.

I need food in order to live, and I can't do so unless I either produce it myself or gain permission to eat food produced by someone else. The solution to both of these so called problems is to gain that permission through voluntary trade.

To bypass this through your proposed "Land Value Tax" is to force them into involuntary servitude, it is to place all of these men who have produced value into the servents to men who have produced nothing. Nature is my servant, not other men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Charles)

"We are nature. Where planets condensed out of hot gas, and life out of basic elements on some planets, volitionally conscious beings evolved out of this life. "

Objectivism makes a distinction between man and nature, and it does so because ethics and politics only apply to man.

The distinction is made between all thats come before us and us as the pinnacle of nature. We were created by it, and yes are now subject to new rules that do not apply to the rest of nature - rules of cooperaton - which we must identify ourselves.

QUOTE (Charles)

The reality is we adapt the land, the resources to our design; if I do the adapting I am responsible for it. If I land on a previously uninhabited planet and start mining; it becomes my domain; I lay claim to it.

Again, the changes you make are yours to keep. But you still haven't explained why the land itself is your domain.

As I have stated; a claim to land is as useful as it is recognized. If you are utilizing the land, and you came first, your claim is strong. However to claim empty land, say a plot of land outside a city - is still equally valid - as long as it is recognized by others, by the law.

You have to me more pragmatic about it; if x lands on the moon with equipment capable of development, and states that land within a 5 mile radius is his - yet some bogus earth company has been selling plots within that radius to the public, years before, it is obvious the claim falls to the man who is actually there, and is capable of reaching/changing that land.

In difficult cases the legal system takes care of things weighing up the factors.

Of course; there might be land that is of such significance and obvious gross benenfit to humanity that laws are called that prohibit -certain- types of activity or industry from taking place. Such laws apply to Antarctica - which has been declared outside national boundaries and only projects of scientific endevour are permitted.

QUOTE (Charles)

It would be unreasonable, and unfeasible to lay claim to the whole of Mars if it is the only other planet we have contact with.

What about half of it? Or just as far as the eye can see? Where is your arbitrary line drawn?

Again; Recognition, Feasibility, Legitimacy.

Finally: You want to Tax claims to land?? If you want to encourage development, dont tax. If you dont wont potential business to be scared off by government interference; do not tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What "things" are you talking about? I have no problem with other people owning things that are the fruits of their own labor or given to them by others. Anything else is okay to own as long as everyone else is given an equal share of the profits from it.

What "profits" are you talking about?

If it hasn't been utilized: its not producing...no profit....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You, like stephen, seem to think that the very act of making an improvement on the land constitutes "creation" of the land. You are confusing the land itself and improvements made upon it.
To tax land value on your property is to claim wealth generated by nobody's effort (nature) or other peoples' effort (the surrounding community). In either case, it belongs to everyone, not just you.

The point of taxation is to redistribute the land value to everyone through a Citizen's Dividend and/or government services.

This seems to be a contradiction: through tax you try to obtain a percentage of wealth made by another for the 'good of society'. You are arguing for a tax on land that hasn't been developed, yet by not being developed it isnt producing a profit from which a tax might be paid? If the money for development is being coerced into government hands, the lands future as nothing, as valueless is secured. By imposing taxes on un-utilized, yet owned, land you prevent development of it in many cases.

Not to mention: the obvious loopholes created when you tax only undeveloped land... I see a nation of plots containing foundations, or whatever legally constitutes utilizing... This, like so many forms of taxation, would have a wholly negative effect on the distribution of wealth.

Imagine a field: this field is owned by an individual, who sees its potential - yet cannot afford to develop it for the next three years. What will be of greater value to society: that man being taxed, the time it will take to develop that land being increased substantially; OR three years from now, that man's business opening; turning inert, valueless space, into profit, putting it into the economy of transactions between all mankind? man creating value? or man paying for an idea he may never get a chance to put into action?

Money doesn't come from nothing Oakes; and it certainly don't grow on trees...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry' date=' but now you are just back with your original "problem," the one for which you have dreamed up this elaborate "solution."[/quote']

Not true. The original problem was that landowners were denying you land that they didn't rightfully own, because it wasn't the result of their labor. After the LVT has been implemented, you may still be denied land, but the landowners are paying the LVT so they rightfully own it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. The original problem was that landowners were denying you land that they didn't rightfully own ...

Now you are attempting to rewrite history. The actual history is in your words which I quoted, and in your prior posts. Your claim was that your supposed right to "be" was being denied if no land-owner allowed you to "be" on his property, and without this land life becomes a physical impossibility. You contrasted this supposed state with that of food, saying that if no one sells you food you can still grow your own, but without land you will die. Your whole notion was an attempt to circumvent this, but, as I have shown, your "system" leads us right back to the beginning, where your right to "be" is denied. As you yourself said, this state is a "cruel contradiction."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LVT is in complete philosophical agreement with Objectivism; as a matter of fact, Objectivism requires it to be fully consistent.

Any mandatory tax is a violation of rights. A proper government does not have the power to initiate force against any innocent person and a mandatory tax is just such a violation. A government having the ability to take your money against your will means that you only have your money by the permission of the government, this then extends not only to your property but to your life; leaving your entire life at the government's whim because it may dispose of your life or your possessions at any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your claim was that your supposed right to "be" was being denied if no land-owner allowed you to "be" on his property, and without this land life becomes a physical impossibility. You contrasted this supposed state with that of food, saying that if no one sells you food you can still grow your own, but without land you will die.

Correct. So you can draw from this two basic justifications for the LVT:

(1) Without land, labor (and thus, life) becomes a physical impossibility, and (2), unlike food, land is not the result of human labor.

According to #1, your right to life (your ability to labor for your own survival) is impossible without land and must include it. According to #2, it is not a violation of your right to property to redistribute land value.

So, exactly what I said follows. Your right to life is violated unless you are allowed equal access to land. You can give access to everybody either by redistributing land or land value. Redistributing the former ends up violating your right to property so only the latter is possible.

Any mandatory tax is a violation of rights. A proper government does not have the power to initiate force against any innocent person and a mandatory tax is just such a violation.

You are assuming the person is innocent when he denies others access to something he didn't create. The government is justified in intervening when someone violates the rights of others.

Objectivists are used to the idea that taxation is theft, because they take it for granted that any kind of tax is a violation of property. But, as I have demonstrated, the LVT is one exception to this rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can give access to everybody either by redistributing land or land value. Redistributing the former ends up violating your right to property so only the latter is possible.

You are now being dishonest, choosing to ignore the fact that your own scheme results in the exact same quandry that you initially meant to remedy. Any further discussion with you about this is pointless, since you do not want to be bound by the inevitable (il)logic of your arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrshep
You are assuming the person is innocent when he denies others access to something he didn't create. The government is justified in intervening when someone violates the rights of others.

Objectivists are used to the idea that taxation is theft, because they take it for granted that any kind of tax is a violation of property. But, as I have demonstrated, the LVT is one exception to this rule.

Your argument is essentially the same as the claim that "All property is theft." (Look up "Stolen Concept" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon.)

Um, how do you figure that?

The right to property is an individual right, not a collective right that you advocate. There are no collective rights; only individual rights.

To own property is to have the right to use it, to decide how to use it, and it includes the rightful ability to dispose of it, for instance by selling it. One can sell one's own property; one cannot sell one's supposed portion of so-called "public property." Ever tried to sell your portion of a national park? Try it; see how far you get.

If everyone "owns" land, as you are want to view, then no individual owns it, rather every individual must get the approval, the permission, of everyone else before he would be permitted to use it. Permitted to use it; not right to use it. Meaning that no one has any rights at all, not life, not liberty, not property, and not to the pursuit of happiness.

In spite of your silly protests, it is not possible to even own one's improvements to land if one can't own the land. If one doesn't have the right to use the land, to own it, one can hardly claim the right to use one's improvements. The whole distinction is a farce.

Don't tell me that you're willing to tolerate land ownership (therefore ownership of one's improvements). It's not rightful ownership that you would tolerate. You would tolerate the "ownership" of land as an injustice to be made right by forcibly taking wealth from those who create wealth. Land ownership is your form of "Original Sin," and you intend to punish people for the sin of living. Why?

So that you'll have a "right to be."

What garbage!

Listen well: Your baseless association of me with communists is insulting. I've already explained what separates me from them, and you can refer back to my earlier posts if you need to.

Nothing separates you from them; my claim is not baseless. If it is insulting, it should be. But the guilt is yours, not mind. I'll apologize for "insulting" you when you apologize for all the death and destruction caused by your views, yes, your communist views.

What a tribute to modern "education"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: All quotes that follow quote Oakes.

The LVT doesn't ensure that everyone has land; it ensures that everyone can buy land.

I currently own no land. I am leading a productive and happy life. Go figure.

Ever heard of rented accomodation?

Land is not a precursor to your life.

Government obligations........to ensure thru taxation that Person X compensates those who have less access to land.
a. I own no land

b. person X owns some barren land

Q1: Why does X owe me money?

Q2: Why does X owe everyone else money?

What makes you think I'm only taxing undeveloped land? I'm taxing any land that someone claims ownership to, and wants the government to recognize that ownership.

So your taxing developed land aswell now?

Depending on how big and valuable the land is, his Citizen's Dividend may be equal to or greater than what he payed in taxes.
**crazy math**

Your hypothetical situation is an unfortunate one, in that he bought the land before he was ready to start the business.

Have you any idea how many situations this applies to?

Remember that they get money back from the Citizen's Dividend.

You appear to be a repressed Communist, at the very least an ardent socialist.

Your continued defence for your LVT shows a basic failure of understanding of Capitalism, Objectivism and logic.

I suggest you read through, and follow up the reasons stated against the LVT in order to gain an understanding of the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivists are used to the idea that taxation is theft, because they take it for granted that any kind of tax is a violation of property. But, as I have demonstrated, the LVT is one exception to this rule.

What you have demonstrated is that you suffer from a severe case of rationalism. As Charles pointed out, "I currently own no land. I am leading a productive and happy life. Go figure." Whatever verbal contortions you care to engage in, none of them will enable you to escape the fact that your starting premise is false. As others have told you in previous threads - stop looking at words, and look at reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the LVT has been implemented, you may still be denied land, but the landowners are paying the LVT so they rightfully own it.

If you are "denied land," then you have no space which is yours and you are involuntarily forced to serve others (as you have stated previously). So, where will this LVT tax check be desposited? Each of your pockets is owned by someone else...are they really paying the tax, if the space the payment is in, is owned by someone else?

Do they really "rightfully own the land" (under your system), if their tax money is not going to those who do not own any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming the person is innocent when he denies others access to something he didn't create. The government is justified in intervening when someone violates the rights of others.

You don't necessarily have to create it to own it. You can own it by making use of it assuming that it does not belong to anyone in the first place.

Let's say I find some land that no one owns, it is not being used, and I build a house on it and start a farm. You are saying that my occupation and use of this land is a violation of the rights of others because I won't let others use it? You are saying that I (or someone, somewhere) owe them a certain amount of land value simply because they were born?

You are not entitled to land just as you are not entitled to claim the "right" that someone must sustain your existence for you. You have the right to buy land but not the right to claim that others owe it to you. By occupying my land and making use of it (as opposed to sitting alone on an entire continent, doing nothing, simplying claiming that it is mine) I own the land until the day I decide to sell it or if I die, etc. Therefore government is initiating force and therefore breach of rights of innocent people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oakes,

Your agrument is based on a false premise. you claim say "I don't want to tax improvements on the land, only the land value itself." You repeat this assertion over and over again.

While you explictly state that you don't accept the conept of intrinsic value, ask yourself what is meant by "the land value itself" and whether this represents an implicitly intrinsic approach to value.

The land acquires its value only after man enters the equation. The point of my entire previous post (which I think you seriously need to re-read) was that the land itself has zero value. It aquires its status as a mental value when a man recognizes its potentia to create wealth. It aquires its status as a material value (i.e. wealth) only after that potential has been actualized (only after the wealth has been created).

You are suggesting that wealth be destributed BEFORE it is created because you are advocating the redistribution of non-existent intrinsic value.

This thread need not continue untill you provide a substantial defense of your premise that you use to justify a distinction between the "land value itself" and the "improvements on land". I think others have made the mistake of granting you this premise and then illustrating what other terrible conclusions it neccesitates. I do not grant you your premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been sitting at my computer for at least three or four hours trying to figure out who is right. I am now finding problems with each side, and I don't know what to do about it.

On the one hand, it seems that my idea does indeed end up at the same quandry it started out at (as stephen said). They still don't have an absolute right to be on earth even after the LVT, because they can still theoretically be kicked out if every landowner rejects them. Also, it is indeed possible to live without ownership of any land (as Charles and DPW said) at the permission of others.

On the other hand, your idea still seems arbitrary in one crucial sense: What constitutes ownership? AndrewSternberg pointed out a couple examples of how our property is determined by if we use it as an ingredient in the creation of value. But how much of the property do we need to use as an ingredient before we can claim all of it to be ours? And what government agency will be appointed to decide if you are really using your property as an ingredient to create value?

Help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help!

Start with Ayn Rand's essay "The Property Status of Airways" reprinted in the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Then read the rest of the book. Without understanding the principles the conflicts and resolution of particular problems will not much matter.

For specific detailed reference try George Reisman's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. It is available for downloading online at http://www.capitalism.net/

Note that there already exists a great deal of law regarding property rights of land, and some of it is actually sensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, your idea still seems arbitrary in one crucial sense: What constitutes ownership? AndrewSternberg pointed out a couple examples of how our property is determined by if we use it as an ingredient in the creation of value. But how much of the property do we need to use as an ingredient before we can claim all of it to be ours? And what government agency will be appointed to decide if you are really using your property as an ingredient to create value?

Of the three functions of government that have a valid justificition, the system of courts would handle the issue of what constitutes an objective use of land (as an ingredient in the sense that I described before). If you can grant that whenever there is a case where unowned land is in fact being used by man in the creation of value (wealth), then he is entitled by right to that land, then we can move on to discussing what objectively represents an instance of this case.

But I agree with Stephen that reading what Ayn Rand has to say is a better place to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...