Land policy: Statism vs Voluntary Cooperatives

[emilynghiem]

“Ode to Liberty” by Henry George | TAX LAND, NOT MAN

taxlandnotman.org

A friend of mine (I am inviting to join here) posted proposals that taxing land would mean equalizing ownership instead of govt and corporate interests manipulating markets and economic distribution.

He believes this will stop Statism and equalize Liberty. But my Anarchist Christian friends argue it still means govt controlling land, instead of people voluntarily participating in economy.

Do you see a way of allowing all groups to live under their policy of choice?

When Federalists and AntiFederalists disagreed, they found ways to set up States separately from Federal Govt and added the Bill of Rights to define individual liberties and protections as well.

Is there a way to set up separate tax policies by Party, where we disagree, and still have national policies paid for where we all agree?

Here is the website for my other fridnds setting up cooperatives, where the land is under religious nonprofits that are taxfree. Www.tbt.org I believe this approach will work more effectively and faster by not requiring govt or people to change their policies. Www.medcoops.info

CC Prof.Lunaphiles Can we make tax policy reform and proposals the topic of a Convention and invite people to use your format for consulting in groups?

 

[Moonglow]

consistent voluntaryist is what a Christian Anarchist is, are these people consistent voluntariest?

 

[Moonglow]

Is there a way to set up separate tax policies by Party, where we disagree, and still have national policies paid for where we all agree?

No..Not in a Democratic -Republic.

 

[Moonglow]

I bought my land with cash and have zero problems paying the taxes on my land because I believe I must pay back and forward what the community has done for me and my family.

 

[emilynghiem]

consistent voluntaryist is what a Christian Anarchist is, are these people consistent voluntariest?

Dear Moonglow
That group of AC is a mix. Some are Universalist into noncoercion and inclusion, some are reactionary anti-govt.

My friend who is Georgist has no problem with using Govt. I also believe Govt can be used relatively, where Statists live by their mandates, and those who can govern independently can exercise their beliefs without imposition, either way.

Where I clash with AC is if they insist all govt must be abolished period.

I don't see how to even enforce that without coercion. If you truly believe in voluntaryism, some people will keep using govt. So why not let them govern themselves as they believe?

 

[emilynghiem]

Is there a way to set up separate tax policies by Party, where we disagree, and still have national policies paid for where we all agree?

No..Not in a Democratic -Republic.

Why not?
We allow States to have their own systems of State taxes or not.

We have national and international church groups govern their own administrations and social programs.

Political parties already form their own groups and reps by district state and national networks based on their common beliefs.

Why not let Parties pay for their own policies to ensure free exercise of religion.

Then use Govt to represent neutral universal policy where these agree?

 

[Moonglow]

Is there a way to set up separate tax policies by Party, where we disagree, and still have national policies paid for where we all agree?

No..Not in a Democratic -Republic.

Why not?
We allow States to have their own systems of State taxes or not.

We have national and international church groups govern their own administrations and social programs.

Political parties already form their own groups and reps by district state and national networks based on their common beliefs.

Why not let Parties pay for their own policies to ensure free exercise of religion.

Then use Govt to represent neutral universal policy where these agree?

All states have state taxes for state revenue.

 

[rightwinger]

Is there a way to set up separate tax policies by Party, where we disagree, and still have national policies paid for where we all agree?

Nope
You can’t have one group pay for public services and another group refusing to contribute.

Like Oliver Wendell Holmes said......Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society

 

[Mac-7]

Why not let Parties pay for their own policies to ensure free exercise of religion.

you mean something like a republican defense dept and a democrat welfare dept?

That sounds great but it would not work

 

[emilynghiem]

Is there a way to set up separate tax policies by Party, where we disagree, and still have national policies paid for where we all agree?

Nope
You can’t have one group pay for public services and another group refusing to contribute.

Like Oliver Wendell Holmes said......Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society

Dear Moonglow
What if it is enough to have Republicans and Conservatives pay only for military security law enforcement and external services of govt.
And Liberals and Progressive Democrats pay for internal social priorities?

We really do not need a ton of taxes to cover health.care. Singapore is able to cover their 10M population with a 3% tax that cover catastrophic insurance through govt and the rest goes to citizens HSA for free choice to manage their own care. The nonprofit medical cooperatives cut costs and improve services by similar direct associations.

Where are you assuming everyone needs to pay for everything as being adverse to delegating responsibility? What if Greens were in charge of representation and policy on environmental restoration and clean energy? Can't that become a self sustaining system also? Where any corporation affecting health of people or the planet is held directly responsible for costs. Isn't that a better way to ensure costs are kept in.check by holding people directly accountable instead of "charging all taxpayers" for damages and debts that NOBODY agrees to pay for?

 

[emilynghiem]

Why not let Parties pay for their own policies to ensure free exercise of religion.

you mean something like a republican defense dept and a democrat welfare dept?

That sounds great but it would not work

Let's start with that and see what the budgets look like.

If Democrats want benefits and education paid for, why not require recipients to serve in Medical training and service like Military do to earn their benefits?

Just restructuring schools and prisons to provide teaching hospitals and medical education and training in public health, in order to equally access and provide universal care, would be plenty of reform to focus on.

Can we start there, see how much govt waste or abuse can be corrected by delegating programs to parties that WANT to run these effectively, and then agree what policies to keep public that everyone agrees on?

 

[emilynghiem]

Is there a way to set up separate tax policies by Party, where we disagree, and still have national policies paid for where we all agree?

Nope
You can’t have one group pay for public services and another group refusing to contribute.

Like Oliver Wendell Holmes said......Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society

Again rightwinger
We already have prochoice and prolife people who don't want to pay for the other agenda.

The nonprofit cooperative approaches to health care, and restorative justice reforms of prisons and courts, also show we can drastically cut costs and provide services without raising taxes but actually reducing costs by half or more.

What if we reward people with greater freedom to fund more cost effective alternatives by proving which approaches cut taxes and govt waste?

If we can run the needed programs without forcing anyone to pay for policies against their beliefs, why not run programs that work so well that voluntary support, or AGREEMENTS to pay taxes mandatory on policies we AGREE benefit the public uniformly, are ENOUGH to provide for everyone?

 

[Mac-7]

Why not let Parties pay for their own policies to ensure free exercise of religion.

you mean something like a republican defense dept and a democrat welfare dept?

That sounds great but it would not work

Let's start with that and see what the budgets look like.

If Democrats want benefits and education paid for, why not require recipients to serve in Medical training and service like Military do to earn their benefits?

Just restructuring schools and prisons to provide teaching hospitals and medical education and training in public health, in order to equally access and provide universal care, would be plenty of reform to focus on.

Can we start there, see how much govt waste or abuse can be corrected by delegating programs to parties that WANT to run these effectively, and then agree what policies to keep public that everyone agrees on?

I dont know how the democrats should spend the money they raise for welfare

It would be up to them

 

[emilynghiem]

Why not let Parties pay for their own policies to ensure free exercise of religion.

you mean something like a republican defense dept and a democrat welfare dept?

That sounds great but it would not work

Let's start with that and see what the budgets look like.

If Democrats want benefits and education paid for, why not require recipients to serve in Medical training and service like Military do to earn their benefits?

Just restructuring schools and prisons to provide teaching hospitals and medical education and training in public health, in order to equally access and provide universal care, would be plenty of reform to focus on.

Can we start there, see how much govt waste or abuse can be corrected by delegating programs to parties that WANT to run these effectively, and then agree what policies to keep public that everyone agrees on?

I dont know how the democrats should spend the money they raise for welfare

It would be up to them

Yes, especially when people have to work for the money they are spending, they have direct say in where it goes, and will be more accountable with the terms when it's their own money labor and credit on the line.

 

[rightwinger]

Again @rightwinger
We already have prochoice and prolife people who don't want to pay for the other agenda.

We have people who don’t want to pay for war
People without kids who donot want to pay for schools
Non-drivers who do not want to pay for roads

You cannot have an alacarte tax system where everyone picks and chooses where their tax dollar goes

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Again @rightwinger
We already have prochoice and prolife people who don't want to pay for the other agenda.

We have people who don’t want to pay for war
People without kids who donot want to pay for schools
Non-drivers who do not want to pay for roads

You cannot have an alacarte tax system where everyone picks and chooses where their tax dollar goes

Exactly. emilynghiem has the abstract solution, but she does not take the time to figure out the tangible, "how to do it."

If she would take the time and figure out how to do it, then it could be applied to a bunch of other issues; and she would probably get paid for the copyright to the organizational system.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

A friend of mine (I am inviting to join here) posted proposals that taxing land would mean equalizing ownership instead of govt and corporate interests manipulating markets and economic distribution.

Is there a way to set up separate tax policies by Party, where we disagree, and still have national policies paid for where we all agree?

You seem to have the solution, but you have not shown anyone how to do it. I am trying to figure out how to do the complex decision-making and resolution schemes that you are seemingly suggesting are possible, but you are not going to the next step - how to do it, and explain it to the people who do not understand how it works.

It is very difficult to explain new things to most people, and you are not catching on to that. You are just going on from one issue to the next saying that there is an independent (I do not know what you call it) taxation solution to our social disagreements, but you do not detail how the independent taxation scheme works.

You seem to be insisting that you see the future, but it is up to other people to figure out how to do it.

You need to figure out how to do it. You have to compose the directive systems that go step by step. It is very difficult - very difficult. There are a lot of variables to be considered that tangle everything up.

I am providing you to try to figure it out at the forum that I am building, but you do not want to do that - you are hoping to find help at USMB. It is not here. USMB is just a trolling forum - nothing is being accomplished here.

The title of this thread and your opening post are difficult to understand - you are not going to get people to help, because it is easier for people to just say, "it is not going to work." Other people are not inclined to do the complex thinking of new ideas that they did not generate themselves.

Wake Up

 

[emilynghiem]

Again @rightwinger
We already have prochoice and prolife people who don't want to pay for the other agenda.

We have people who don’t want to pay for war
People without kids who donot want to pay for schools
Non-drivers who do not want to pay for roads

You cannot have an alacarte tax system where everyone picks and chooses where their tax dollar goes

Exactly. emilynghiem has the abstract solution, but she does not take the time to figure out the tangible, "how to do it."

If she would take the time and figure out how to do it, then it could be applied to a bunch of other issues; and she would probably get paid for the copyright to the organizational system.

Dear Prof.Lunaphiles

So far, the three basic approaches I have to offer

1. go through PARTIES and their chairs, and conventions, to set up
a Council of Reps from each Party/County where we can consult BETWEEN PARTIES

2. offer the idea of using the ELECTORAL COLLEGE map and reps to
set up Proportional or Direct Representation by Party

3. Then we can discuss the proposals of
A. how to separate the EXTERNAL govt jurisdiction (and possible taxes based on land area not development)
B. from the INTERNAL social administrations, benefits and services (possibly based on consumption
and sales taxes or whatever the districts use, such as cooperative economics or the nonprofit campus/church community system)

(4. One proposal to do this involves setting up an equal alternative to the draft
for MILITARY service, and offer required MEDICAL training, screening and service
for all citizens 18 or older who want to claim paid benefits and education similar to Veterans.
This PROPOSAL is not for me to dictate.
I can just OFFER it as one idea, but let the PARTIES decide what works for them.)

The reason I do not dictate FURTHER than the basic shell
is to remain NEUTRAL and OPEN to the participation
and input of each person, party, group or district.

I do need to layout enough means for people to communicate.

So Prof.Lunaphiles Your offer to facilitate these
consulting or convention proceedings by forum/board
is also a helpful tool. The point is for people to share THEIR ideas
and to piece together the best solution that works for everyone.

Usually if someone has a serious objection, they see a barrier
or they have a better solution.

 

[emilynghiem]

A friend of mine (I am inviting to join here) posted proposals that taxing land would mean equalizing ownership instead of govt and corporate interests manipulating markets and economic distribution.

Is there a way to set up separate tax policies by Party, where we disagree, and still have national policies paid for where we all agree?

You seem to have the solution, but you have not shown anyone how to do it. I am trying to figure out how to do the complex decision-making and resolution schemes that you are seemingly suggesting are possible, but you are not going to the next step - how to do it, and explain it to the people who do not understand how it works.

It is very difficult to explain new things to most people, and you are not catching on to that. You are just going on from one issue to the next saying that there is an independent (I do not know what you call it) taxation solution to our social disagreements, but you do not detail how the independent taxation scheme works.

You seem to be insisting that you see the future, but it is up to other people to figure out how to do it.

You need to figure out how to do it. You have to compose the directive systems that go step by step. It is very difficult - very difficult. There are a lot of variables to be considered that tangle everything up.

I am providing you to try to figure it out at the forum that I am building, but you do not want to do that - you are hoping to find help at USMB. It is not here. USMB is just a trolling forum - nothing is being accomplished here.

The title of this thread and your opening post are difficult to understand - you are not going to get people to help, because it is easier for people to just say, "it is not going to work." Other people are not inclined to do the complex thinking of new ideas that they did not generate themselves.

Wake Up

Dear Prof.Lunaphiles
What will get my Progressive friends to the table
1. Wanting to impose a tax on the top billionaires to pay for all the social programs to save live.
I argued we should come up with such efficient plans for ending poverty through universal care
and microlending to invest in sustainable campus job training and cooperative economic development
that financier WANT to invest and give freely, and not require punishing anyone base don wealth.
We also might agree to microlending instead of forcing taxation.
2. Abolishing the Death Penalty and replacing prisons with teaching hospitals
and cooperative clinics to heal the sick and criminally ill to prevent crime
and save millions in resources needed to train more service providers
and build enough facilities to meet demands for universal care.
3. Using tax money saved from preventing the causes of crime, war and other waste
to pay for the jobs, health care and education WITHOUT raising more taxes.
Just using the taxes (and debts) we already have.