Geolibertarianism

>>135211110
What am I looking at exactly? Free market + property tax?

>>135211757
By property I mean natural resources: land, water, air, space, oil, etc... Natural resources should be owned by all and all should share in the profits their natural resources provide.

>>135212490
So, if my understanding of this ideology is correct, one pays (via tax collected by govt) on land to rent that land from The Commons, gaining exclusive usage rights of that land? That land owndership is a common good but what one produced on/with said land isn't?

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

>>135213313
You're correct.
The free market is very important and keeping the stuff you make is also important.

>>135213313
The type of natural resource contracts you can make aren't limited to just land. And you can settle for cheaper contracts/taxes if you agree to not spoil the land and any improvements you make to the natural resource will benefit you.

Just go to Arden, Delaware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arden,_Delaware

>>135214406
Doesn't this form of government disincentive land renters from increasing the vale of the land they're renting? Since there is little guarantee of long-running residency of the land, private renters would opt for temporary or cheaper improvement solutions.

If one can't own property, but instead rents it from The Commons, then market forces outside their control can price them out of rentership. If I've been renting land for years but the surrounding renters begin to improve their properties at a rate that I can't keep up with, my land rent raises (as the free market speculatory value of the land has increases), pricing me out of the land I've been residing on.

>>135214664
>The type of natural resource contracts you can make aren't limited to just land.
If I'm renting land in a cheap, mountainous area and a nearby land owner finds gold on his land, my tax would skyrocket (as the land is now gold-bearing land and worth more)

>>135215359
>vale
value*

>>135212490
>air space oil
I was all with you until this one, that's just a bad idea. If someone buys some land from the government and pays for it, and then he finds oil on it, are you going to increase rent? He found it, so that was his labor.
Air is ridiculous too, you can't measure how much air someone uses, and we are in a self regulating biosphere anyways, so unless someone actively starts destroying the environment, air will always be replenished naturally, so there's no scarcity of it, thus no reason to tax.

>>135211110
Lived for years on a commune in the seventies, they suck. Libertarian commune sounds like cognitive dissonance.

File: 1470243871292.jpg (191KB, 1043x630px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1043x630px

>tfw OP leaves before you get answers to your legitimate questions.

>>135215359
Then you could pass on your contract to someone else for profit. You'd still have time before your contract expired which would be enough to give you room to maneuver.
Plus, any value you add to the natural resource through your labor/capital/tech/intellect will be given back to you. You can still invest in land.
>>135215515
So I'm allowed to just suck up and store all the air from the atmosphere? Or pump up all the oil from the wells?
>>135215903
Yeah commune isn't a good word for it, but everyone who's a shareholder of all the natural resources will profit off the natural resources so idk what to call it.
>>135217437
my bad i was watching a show.

>>135219863
>Or pump up all the oil from the wells?
Why not? You've added value to the Oil by pumping it, when it's in the ground it's an unsellable resource.

>>135221004
same with air?

>>135222687
1) You can't pump all the air out of the atmosphere because it's impossible.
2) IF(!) you could, people would stop you from doing so because it's a threat to their life
3) Air is sellable for the same reason I gave for oil (pumped/pressurized air in canisters have a market where they're a useful commodity)

So, what about my comments on oil then?

>>135223964
1.) not the argument
2.) then why not fresh water? i could just buy up all the property around your property and pump up any fresh water that starts flowing towards your property. why not oil? we need it for heating.
3.)if you want to sell air go ahead just make sure to pay the aggression tax first.
>adding value to oil by pumping it
yes, i do want to incentivize individuals to compete for discoveries and to take risks to push humanity forward. stealing oil from the ground might be adding value for you, but not to anyone else. sure, the oil would be in store shelves but you stole it from the ground first. it'd be like stealing jewelry from a rich lady and selling it to others and saying you are adding value to the jewelry by harvesting it. except natural resources belong to ALL humans, not just one person.
And do I add value by pumping and storing air? No!
How are you holding two conflicting ideas in your head right now? Air is different from oil to you? Fresh water?

>>135219863
>So I'm allowed to just suck up and store all the air from the atmosphere?
Yeah because that's totally possible.
>pump up all the oil
If it's on your property you can do that. If the government knew about the oil they would have sold you the property lease for more money, but if you discovered it there then it's yours to keep.
>>135225001
>stealing oil from the ground
You are making no sense at all you retard. It's literally on your property so of course you should pump it up. Oil drilling is a lot of labor, you think taking water and producing hydrogen from it is stealing water too? Retard.

>>135225001
>1.) not the argument
You literally made that argument is >>135219863
>2.) then why not fresh water? i could just buy up all the property around your property and pump up any fresh water that starts flowing towards your property.
By your own idology, your property tax would go down (due to the devaluation of your property on account of it having no water). You could probably use those savings to import water or rent property away from assholes.
>why not oil? we need it for heating.
Because if it's a public good there is no market incentive to develop the resource.
>>adding value to oil by pumping it
This is literally true. A literal good is worth more than a speculative good; immediacy effects value. By pumping the oil out of the ground, the market value increases. If you don't get this concept, man, I've got a pair of birds in the bush that I'd love to trade for the bird in your hand.

>the rest of your post
You're just a communist. There is no other explanation here, stop calling yourself a libertarian. Do you even understand the ideology you started this thread about? Did you even read the wikipedia page and understand it?

> it'd be like stealing jewelry from a rich lady and selling it to others and saying you are adding value to the jewelry by harvesting it.
You're retarded it's like I mined gems and sold them.

>And do I add value by pumping and storing air?
"Gee, I need to run my pneumatic screwdriver but I don't have any compressed air. The guy down the street has an air compressor, I could PAY HIM to fill my air tank with all this air around me, the value of which is not immediate without a form of processing to make it useful to me."

>>135226670
ok buddy i'm just going to buy up all the property that surrounds your property and build walls around it. Walls so high the sun won't reach your ground. walls so deep that water can't make it to your well. walls so high you'll have no wind. honestly, are you even considering real life here or not?

>>135227151
>Did you even read the wikipedia page and understand it?
what did i misunderstand? did you read it?
yes, i do think mutual ownership of natural resources is a bit communistic/socialistic (instead of sharing the factory you share the environment) but those ideologies are missing free market principles. Free Market Anarchism might make sense to you. Geolibertarianism/Georgism is basically Free Market Anarchism with a solution on how to market the environment (anarchists just ignore the issue)
>Gee, I need to run my pneumatic screwdriver but I don't have any compressed air. The guy down the street has an air compressor, I could PAY HIM to fill my air tank with all this air around me, the value of which is not immediate without a form of processing to make it useful to me."
taking a bit of air is a very small aggression and an air compressor doesn't destroy the air, you're putting it back. but power plants consume the air, burning a forest consumes the air. Pollution is also a violation of the NAP but that's basic, we're talking about consumption/harvesting/destruction of natural resources.
I understand the allure of the 'if I fund the discovery then the discovery belongs to me' because it's a principle that drives discovery thanks to our greed but it's an unsustainable principle and just because you happen to find the natural resources doesn't give you any right to them. But I'[m not throwing away the free market. READ you fucking faggot.

>>135227975
At what point can someone sell oil? If they refine it in to gasoline or kerosene is it sellable then? Jet fuel? Or is it always a public good?

What about commodity items like gems? Mining then out of the ground isn't much different from a logical stand point than extracting oil, are they a common good too? If I cut the gems and make jewelry do they now BECOME a sellable good or are they still a public good?

>>135228418
no you just tell everyone/commune/government/etc that you'll be extracting a natural resource and you work out a contract. so lets say they say you have to pay 1000 dollar a gallon of oil just to extract it it's a retarded price but they want to preserve the environment for some reason. so you go somewhere else or laugh at them and wait until they make a reasonable offer.
the other option is to just go ahead and do the extraction and then pay whatever price they tell you to pay afterward. crimes will obviously happen so a system should account for those bad actors. if the aggressor refuses to pay then he is literally stealing form humanity which would be a crime and he'd be subject to any aggression towards him that equals the aggression he caused.
But assuming you did everything peacefully, that oil is no longer a natural resource since you bought it from humanity. you can now do whatever the fuck you want with it. I'm not against profits, I'm just against pollution and environment theft. of course, you'd have to pay for any pollution your refining process causes because pollution is a violation of the NAP.
What's funny is that this system kind of exists today in America and Norway. Alaskan residents get severance pay for the oil the companies extract. We already have this system I just want to apply the underlying principles to air, pollution, land, etc... So we'd have a free market with a tax income to fund a government. Best of both worlds and residents would still get a form of UBI.
The gems are a natural resource to begin with but once you buy the rights to them from humanity they are yours, wholly. They become your property. do whatever you want with them afterwards. you just can't go into Alaska and claim ownership over any gold you find etc without agreeing to a contract first.

>>135215515
>If someone buys some land from the government and pays for it, and then he finds oil on it, are you going to increase rent? He found it, so that was his labor.
No, the government union of surveyors and excavators would get paid relatively handsomely to dig we the peoples common resources, to hold in a cache to split, sell and/or use. But you are right, the way things have been have been the way they have been and its created the world and I guess cant entirely say pretty too far into it I suppose if one estimates a nation has common access to natural resources still, government owned land. It would have almost had to have been nations would have had to have this from the start, though nations have done this in the past and recently and currently