Why do right wing retards and commy scum hate this man /pol/?

Georgist land policy is the most left wing idea i support

i doubt most people have read that awful book.

taking land away from the public just to be divide up by a group of people in power for the "best use" seems like a great plan. Because clearly people who have money to finance the same thing should not own land....

what a joke of a book.

File: AnarchismTree09.gif (37KB, 586x378px)

37KB, 586x378px

>>115084005
is it really left wing? I think its the only sensible economic theory; right in the middle. If youre actually consist and and believe in freedom you should be a georgist

File: TkkrWa5.jpg (54KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 640x480px

>>115084632
>taking land away from the public

Have you read the book? Its not about the land itself but to whom the rent goes .

File: 1468860268401.gif (178KB, 1025x682px)

178KB, 1025x682px

>>115084901
>Interest
fuck that mate
also the chart should have a profit row

>>115083559

I'm right wing as hell and I love Henry George.

>>115085285
saved to my Georgist folder

File: 246517_448675741817412_289891264_n1.jpg (128KB, 800x658px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 800x658px

Just gonna dump some Georgist propaganda and hope to convert some /pol/tards. This is the perfect idea for /pol/ its hated by the right and left. Its paradigm shifting and shits all over establishment thinking

between hard right and hard left, there are the long-suffering middle-of-the-roaders, who may even acknowledge that treating the symptoms may not cure the disease, but at least it’s better than nothing. But is it? How has moderation worked so far? Without King John, there would be no Robin Hood. The left never exists without property privilege. The status quo of endless conflict and competition between the two is very profitable to the insiders on both sides. For this reason alone Georgists will never be invited to the party. In games of political maneuvering, it’s too easy to gain currency by agreeing to black ball outsiders. The critical ingredient to change that is courage.

There is no honest critique of Georgism from right or left. They both fail to acknowledge the presence/function/importance of rent, the huge, constant, systemic redistribution coming from the force of resource exclusion. The growing wealth gap is proof enough that the redistribution, the take, is gigantic. If objects fall, there is gravity — even if one can’t see or formulate it.

>>115084901
renting land. as you put it is taking away from the public. the land is owned by the government, and is given to certain people for "the best use". tell me, if the group in power controls land would that be removing from the public? i can sell land as a person to another person. if the government compeletly controls the land and chooses the "best" use of the land and "who" get to use it, how is that public land anymore? that is private government land for the use of people who can only use it for what the government deems right, that is slavery, that is serfdom.

taking land away from people in this manner by disallowing property rights, denies people the right to create and grow wealth. you assume the government that has total control will not attract those sick people who will abuse it for there own personal gains

File: download.jpg (10KB, 208x242px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 208x242px

>>115086051
The distinction between common property and state property is lost on royal libertarians. Common property is that to which we all have inalienable rights. State property is that which the state actually owns, and can dispose of as it sees fit. For example, a public right of way is literally a right of way. Under principles of common law, nobody, not even the king, could close a traveled road and make it private property. A state maintenance truck, on the other hand, is state property, which can be sold if it no longer suits state purposes.
The earth, therefore, and all things therein, are the general property of all mankind, from the immediate gift of the Creator.

--William Blackstone

It is a royal libertarian notion, and not a classical liberal ideal, to treat land as state property, for if land did not rightfully belong to the state, how could the state have granted it to favored citizens?
Classical liberals, not royal libertarians, are the ones who deny the state's right to appropriate the earth and allocate it to privileged individuals on favored terms. Classical liberals also who hold the key to abolishing taxation, by suggesting that the community (not the state) charge a user fee to landholders based on the value of the land.

>>115084679
>is it really left wing?
I think of it as so because i approached the idea through Silvio Gesell first, not Henry George