hh on Nostr: The Thomas Paine reference is SO FUCKING WRONG. Paine's "ground rent", from his ...
The Thomas Paine reference is SO FUCKING WRONG. Paine's "ground rent", from his "Agrarian Justice" pamphlet, is a precedent of Henry George's "land value tax" (which isn't a tax), which came to prominence in the English-speaking world and the turn of the last century, as the "Singel-tax Movement". This last bit is important.
The point is:
1. both ideas, but specially George's, are firmly set within the broader libertarian range of political ideas. No space for development here: just look for George's Poverty & Progress (better if you find an abridged version) and see how he derives his thesis from 100% indisputably libertarian principles
2. the core of the concept is that, taxation is theft. Period. All taxes are an infringement and an aggression, whatever it is they're taxing in name, ultimately they are truly taxing the fruit of the labor of a person. There is no distinction between a "capitalist" and a "worker", since "capital" is simply work that is saved in some form ("capital") that enables it to be used for future use, instead of being used on the spot ("work"). Taxing any of them is illegitimate.
3. there are goods that *are* collectively owned, because they are not the consequence of an individual's labor and their value does not depend on them being improved or not by whoever "owns" them. Think an empty lot in Manhattan. The less the "owner" does while those around him work to develop the surrounding area, the more valuable and profitable it becomes for the idle owner. Claiming individual ownership of such goods is not legitimate and invariably can be traced back to an act of violence to encroach upon them. Think the Enclosure of the Commons in medieval England. Again, Poverty & Progress gives the definition and reasoning to determine what these goods are. But basically *finite* natural resources like land (the most important one), water, the atmosphere, mining resources, fisheries, woodlands... Important too: NEVER the infrastructure or improvements built to exploit them, though, since those are the fruit of the labor of someone
4. inextricable to this, the way to allocate the right to exploit these resources, by occupying the land to build housing or whatever, or building a mill by the river, or throwing emissions to the atmosphere, is the market, by which a price is put on those activities. Basically, a concession system (and that's why the name "land value tax" is incorrect, because it's not a tax). If you're paying rent on that vacant lot, you'll make sure to put it into use. This incentivizes maximum productivity and minimum waste
5. finally, and to the point:
There are two possible outcomes for the money that's collected from these concessions, that are open for debate among people who agree with all the above:
a) the money can be kept by whatever form of public sector is left to exist, for the funding of "public services", which in my opinion is hard to justify because it's incoherent with the libertarian core of the whole set of ideas laid out above or
b) the coherent view, in which the money is distributed in equal shares among every single member of the community, and they're responsible to spend them to obtain whatever services they need, from the free market. Think Norway or Brunei with their oil dividend, but no strings attached
This is the only point of contact with the current proposals of a "universal basic income" and Paine's and George's ideas. Because in their current form, these UBI's rarely come from people who want to abolish all taxes and public services and replace them with a free market instead.
If a Georgist system was to be put in place, not only I would be in favor of a UBI, but I would actually DEMAND it, because the government would have no business at all keeping MY money.
As basically all current proposals are right now, I will adamantly oppose them, since they're an insidious form of tyranny and further encroach on markets and individual freedoms.
The point is:
1. both ideas, but specially George's, are firmly set within the broader libertarian range of political ideas. No space for development here: just look for George's Poverty & Progress (better if you find an abridged version) and see how he derives his thesis from 100% indisputably libertarian principles
2. the core of the concept is that, taxation is theft. Period. All taxes are an infringement and an aggression, whatever it is they're taxing in name, ultimately they are truly taxing the fruit of the labor of a person. There is no distinction between a "capitalist" and a "worker", since "capital" is simply work that is saved in some form ("capital") that enables it to be used for future use, instead of being used on the spot ("work"). Taxing any of them is illegitimate.
3. there are goods that *are* collectively owned, because they are not the consequence of an individual's labor and their value does not depend on them being improved or not by whoever "owns" them. Think an empty lot in Manhattan. The less the "owner" does while those around him work to develop the surrounding area, the more valuable and profitable it becomes for the idle owner. Claiming individual ownership of such goods is not legitimate and invariably can be traced back to an act of violence to encroach upon them. Think the Enclosure of the Commons in medieval England. Again, Poverty & Progress gives the definition and reasoning to determine what these goods are. But basically *finite* natural resources like land (the most important one), water, the atmosphere, mining resources, fisheries, woodlands... Important too: NEVER the infrastructure or improvements built to exploit them, though, since those are the fruit of the labor of someone
4. inextricable to this, the way to allocate the right to exploit these resources, by occupying the land to build housing or whatever, or building a mill by the river, or throwing emissions to the atmosphere, is the market, by which a price is put on those activities. Basically, a concession system (and that's why the name "land value tax" is incorrect, because it's not a tax). If you're paying rent on that vacant lot, you'll make sure to put it into use. This incentivizes maximum productivity and minimum waste
5. finally, and to the point:
There are two possible outcomes for the money that's collected from these concessions, that are open for debate among people who agree with all the above:
a) the money can be kept by whatever form of public sector is left to exist, for the funding of "public services", which in my opinion is hard to justify because it's incoherent with the libertarian core of the whole set of ideas laid out above or
b) the coherent view, in which the money is distributed in equal shares among every single member of the community, and they're responsible to spend them to obtain whatever services they need, from the free market. Think Norway or Brunei with their oil dividend, but no strings attached
This is the only point of contact with the current proposals of a "universal basic income" and Paine's and George's ideas. Because in their current form, these UBI's rarely come from people who want to abolish all taxes and public services and replace them with a free market instead.
If a Georgist system was to be put in place, not only I would be in favor of a UBI, but I would actually DEMAND it, because the government would have no business at all keeping MY money.
As basically all current proposals are right now, I will adamantly oppose them, since they're an insidious form of tyranny and further encroach on markets and individual freedoms.
quoting nevent1q…y7x9You need to work hard and pay your taxes so that we can build the roads and give 27 year old artists a UBI of £1,200 a month. The cost of welfare will continue to rise as more people can't work their way out of poverty
Don't let them drag you down too, hold your wealth in something they can't take away from you that easily
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/14/money-for-nothing-is-universal-basic-income-about-to-transform-society