Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14283Re: LVT to be debated in Parliament?

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    Nov 12, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

      > JDK: Well, if in fact this is a "huge historical example", then land value
      > taxation is a huge historical failure. Because the theory is that rentier behavior is THE CAUSE for poverty and inequality.

      No. Removal of people's rights to liberty to use land is the principal cause of poverty. We saw this in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, where the occasional "rentier behavior" by self-seeking bureaucrats was overshadowed by other government policies. The transfer of people's right to liberty to a privileged landowning rentier class, as in Britain, is the principal cause of inequality.

      > So if there really was
      > LVT, then there shouldn't have been "rampant poverty and inequality".

      No, because Britain's LVT only redressed ONE side of the injustice of the enclosures. This is the key point I have been trying to explain, and shows why a UIE (or, second best, a CD) is necessary. Before the enclosures, most people had a right to use land: the village commons. With the enclosures, that right was forcibly removed and transferred to wealthy, privileged landowners. LVT removed part of the privilege enjoyed by landowners, but did nothing to restore the liberty right of the landless or justly compensate them for its removal.

      > LVT as a funding source for imperialism - the taking of
      > land by force - is a peculiar juxtaposition.

      Not really. The rich, powerful and greedy could no longer pocket enough land rent to slake their greed at home, and so sought it abroad using their influence in government to enlist the aid of the Royal Navy -- and army regiments swelled by young men dispossessed, by the enclosures, of their opportunities to earn a livelihood without supporting a parasitic landlord.

      > The idea that a CD is required to do anything for poverty and inequality is really not sound.

      ?? HUH?? You've just claimed LVT was a failure in Britain because it didn't SOLVE poverty and inequality, right after Derek pointed out that the lack of a UIE (or, second best, a CD) in Britain was the REASON it didn't solve them! Talk about refusal to know!

      > At most a CD reduces the amount of time required for
      > work to sustain and thus in theory would free up time for leisure and education.

      False. It would often make the difference between being able to afford the necessities of a decent life above the poverty line while working full time and not being able to afford them. It would also often make the difference between having to offer your labor to an employer immediately, on unfavorable terms, just to stay alive, and being able to hold out for a better situation or better terms. You clearly are not close to understanding the far-reaching implications of the dispossession of people's right to liberty, or its restoration.

      > But CD is not a necessary thing to do that.

      Right. But a UIE (or second best, a CD) is.

      > Progress unencumbered from supporting a parasitic rentierist class would do that too.

      No, it would not, as already explained, and as proved by the socialist historical examples. In the absence of a UIE (or, second best, a CD), the burden of having to pay rent for access to opportunity consigns the least productive to poverty, no matter how much progress there is, or how little rent the landowning class pockets.

      > Even work week hour laws will do that.

      No, they will not, as already explained.

      -- Roy Langston
    • Show all 28 messages in this topic