Socialism* is cruel

Socialism is cruel because it exercises the initial use of force without justification, often only making recourse to vague notions of the collective good, not being properly defined. Any use of (otherwise aggressive) force can only be legitimate if there is an explanation and, effectively, a crime. To punish possession, or defence of an excess quantity of resources, such that others are needlessly deprived will not be aggressive.

If the victim (subject) is not given sufficient and satisfactory explanation of their wrongdoing, or the demonstration of how force serves the greater good, then they have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Without a harmed complainant there is no crime. To be (legitimately) subject to force, there must be a complainant whose grievances must have been found to be justified. Who is the complainant? What's wrong with the situation pertaining without force?

What's wrong with no aggression?

*Used here to mean either one or both of: i) forcing people to use certain services, ii) punishing them with taxes for an action or activity which is not in itself harmful, such as sales tax or income tax.

Socialism destroys society

Socialism destroys society because it removes the right of the individual to protect themselves, and thereby hinders their ability to help one-another. A flourishing society relies on mutual support, for what else does life require, and so this relies on individual strength to fulfil their preferences.

Powerful (derived from being free from aggression) and free individuals are required for the strength of the group. If you leave people alone a healthy society will form.

The group thrives when the individual thrives

The best way to arrange a healthy society, even species, is to allow, as far as possible, individual freedom. This is defined by the lack of aggressive, or uninvited actions. Aggression is not a requirement for a healthy society. And if society requires violence, then is it really something that we want to preserve?

The absence of violence will lead, we must assume, to good outcomes.

There is no conflict between the individual and the group, when one is served so is the other. Since no one seeks to harm the group, the only aspect in which we must desist is in harm to the individual. We must look after (protect) the individual.


To paraphrase: Take care of the individual and the group will take care of itself.

A Land Value Ceiling is defensive

A Land Value Ceiling, or Cap would not violate the Non-Aggression Principle. It would provide the means for the remainder of the population to defend their right to (gain) access to resources. This is the nature of a boundary dispute.

A Land Value Tax with sufficiently high personal allowance would provide the same outcome.

Taxes make less room for charity

Taxes remove wealth from individuals that might otherwise have been used for a charitable pursuit. This is damaging because, generally, money spent by an individual by choice goes much further (is more efficiently spent) than that spent by a third party.

From a certain perspective, every penny spent is charitable spending which (then) makes Government spending hard to justify.

The Land Value Tax encourages more efficient use of resources

The Land Value Tax encourages a more efficient use of the resources available because to hoard assets is penalised. There are only a limited quantity of resources on the planet and they should be used sparingly. The best way to effect efficient use of resources is to have a (legal) mechanism by which assets can be removed from the wealthy on grounds of access. Taxes generally rely on pursuing those who have engaged in an activity such as selling labour, or trade, before they suffer tax. The Land Value Tax enables resources to be transferred from those who are inactive, save for their defence of land.

Property taxes allow the Government to control the use and hoarding of precious resources. The Land Value Tax allows the population to retaliate against those who exclude others from too great a quantity of resources. It allows the poor access to under-used resources.

Those who fail to make good use (at a fair price, to others) of their resources should suffer the Land Value Tax.

Property taxes encourage freedom

Property taxes, such as the Land Value Tax encourage freedom because they reduce inequality. The disparity between rich and poor is (perhaps) the primary, and justified, motivation behind high taxes. When inequality is reduced by placing a limit on property-ownership, with a property tax, there is less argument for high taxes, such as income tax, which means greater freedom.

Taxes such as the Income Tax are justified (to a greater extent than they otherwise would be) when inequality is so stark. Property taxes would reduce inequality and reduce the demand for high income (earnings) taxes, which would then be less popular.