Re: [LandCafe] Re: Georgist Fallacy
- On 19 Oct 2008 at 10:34, Roy Langston wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:Your point is valid, but out of context. Jeff did not propose that public
> >My view is that worthwhile public expenditures do not come out of
> >the dividend. Rather, they increase the dividend by adding more value
> >than they cost.
> Bingo! Which shows why financing them by income tax or
> anything else but land rent is bald theft. That the loot is
> going to a CD for all rather than into private landowners'
> pockets cannot change the essential nature of what is being
> done. Taking wealth from those who have earned it and
> transferring it to those who haven't is theft, no matter how
> indirectly you do it or how much you dress it up in rhetoric
> about "sharing" (or "property rights").
services be financed with income taxes or other taxes, but proposed
that they be paid for by voluntary subscription. I still think he is wrong
with regard to legitimate government functions, which by their nature
attach to location values, not subscribers.
To the extent that government services are local, participation is
voluntary. That is, people choose where they want to live, and thereby
choose the package of services that attach to a particular locality. The
few services that are national by nature, such as military defense, do
no lend themselves to voluntary subscription. It's not like the Allied
armies could have kept the Axis armies out of some people's houses
without keeping them out of everyone's houses.
Even at the local level, it's not like government can pave the street in
front of my house and not pave the street in front of my neighbor's
house, for it does me no good to have a patch of pavement unless that
patch is connected to a network of pavements. When you get right
down to it, things that can be paid for by private subscription are not
proper government services in the first place.
People who don't want pavement can choose communities that don't
pave their streets. Such communities exist, but they are rare because
such an option is not very popular.