From: Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For some reason this didn't seem to post on Friday.
Incidentally, while staying in a Lake Arrowhead hotel room this weekend,
I noticed the incompatibility of mutualism with renting hotel rooms.
The alternative would be to have people buy their hotel room,
Kevin Carson wrote:
Like speculations on seizing land left fallow or whose
owner goes away on a 2-week vacation, this requires putting
the most inconvenient spin possible on mutualist rules.
I have encountered people who claimed to believe that your hammer
ceases to be your property from the
From: Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For an occupant, the incentive to build on one's own land would be the
same
as always. Since there would be no restriction on the right of the
actual
occupier of a piece of land to charge a price before quitting it
Does quitting have to mean selling
Kevin Carson wrote:
For an occupant, the incentive to build on one's own land would be the same
as always. Since there would be no restriction on the right of the actual
occupier of a piece of land to charge a price before quitting it
Does quitting have to mean selling full title? It
From: Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In which case you yourself are 80% Georgist, because if taxes there be not,
then landowners will bear the major cost of infrastructure now paid for by
the taxation of labor and capital. That will deflate their land value, now
puffed up by the capitalization
From: Grey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User-fees are an excellent idea, but I don't think
incompatible with a Lib-Georgist land value tax:
Who supports the judiciary? Who supports the
Dept. of War? er, Defense? -- property owners,
who need/use local police and international police,
as well as
Kevin Carson wrote:
I think the
absentee ownership of land seriously exacerbates economic rent in urban
areas. If the tenants (not only apartment dwellers, but small business
people) of slumlords, real estate speculators, etc., ceased to pay rent, and
if vacant lots could be homesteaded by
--- Kevin Carson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for defense, a decentralized, stateless society would present few
concentrated targets of value to foreign predators; it would have no
central government to surrender;
Tell that to the American Indians.
and local citizens' militias, federated as
From: Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As for defense, a decentralized, stateless society would present few
concentrated targets of value to foreign predators; it would have no
central government to surrender;
Tell that to the American Indians.
OK, adding the proviso that the defenders
--- Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are overlooking so much.
1. Property taxes bring value down just as services bring value up.
True, but currently, property taxes pay only a small fraction of government
expenses, and the property tax on buildings, as distinct from land, are
--- Kevin Carson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know Georgists support land taxes (or community collection of rent, if
you prefer) to fund services. That is one of my central points of
disagreement.
Ideally, taxes should be eliminated altogether.
In which case you yourself are 80% Georgist,
Kevin Carson wrote
By funding services out of general
revenue, we break the market price system's feedback link that tells
the
consumer the real cost of what he consumes, and lets him adjust his
level of
consumption on the basis of the price signal. I suspect that there
are very
few
In a message dated 8/16/02 11:50:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In some sense, local tax collecting communities would then act as
competing corporations – to link this thread with the other topic
floating around on the list
- jacob braestrup
In some sense they do already. New York
13 matches
Mail list logo
