Tried to write a basic outline for a new startup country a year or two
ago as a thought experiment. This ended up being the only "tax"
involved. Didn't know this was a real thing. I'll have to find the old
doc, but I think a yearly auction for the land tax attached to each
piece of land was involved. It's actually quite similar to how a
decentralized DNS should work.

Not sure if there could be an issue with creating a "higher class" of
landowners vs everyone else, but it seems to be the best way to handle
land ownership.

Josh's points on local ostracization are important when it comes to
dealing with people who break consensus. Although, I don't think it
would be incorrect to say that being on someone's else's land without
their permission is breaking the NAP.

- -@kyletorpey <http://twitter.com/kyletorpey>

On 10/07/2014 01:22 PM, Josh Walker wrote:
>>
>> ​ Not sure how I feel about land tax, except that it seems
>> eminently
>
> more logical than the other forms of tax.
>>
>
> ​In my conversations with our like-minded brethren, I've found it's
> best understood when described as this:
>
>
> - ​It's not really a tax, because it's entirely optional -- else
> it would violate the NAP. - ​ You ​are actually trading for
> community consensus that the property is *yours and yours alone. *
> *​*Therefore, you might say this is the cost of that service. - The
> cost is the equilibrium point ​at which you ​r desire to ​keep the
> property exceeds what someone ​someone else would offer.
>
>
> ​If you're actively listening, you might notice price discovery is
> the only tricky part here. This also isn't to replace the cost of
> selling developed property; this is just the cost of retaining
> consensus ownership of the underlying land.
>
> If you are actively contributing the cost of consensus to the
> community in an acceptable form (I see no reason a community would
> always demand *only *raw currency, necessarily), the following
> happens.
>
> - Someone disregarding the community consensus would face censure
> in all local markets. In almost all cases, knowledge of this alone
> is expected to keep folks in like. - If a squatter arrives and
> refuses to leave, and is not dissuaded by being unable to interact,
> buy, or sell with the community, you may remove the squatter. With
> the minimum force required, of course. This means, for example, you
> could physically push the squatter off the land, as gently as
> possible, and if the squatter escalated the altercation, the
> community would not view the squatter's escalation as an act of
> self-defense (unless you began with excessive force).
>
> If you aren't contributing, it still isn't permissible for folks to
> come and steal or break things, but don't expect the community to
> object to a camper on your lawn using your well or something.
> (Local community standards will vary, I'm sure.) And as above, I'd
> definitely expect you to struggle to interact, buy, or sell with
> the local market.
>
> The key being it's all voluntary and the only weapon is the
> *removal of consent to associate.* Also notable is, there's clearly
> room for compassion and exceptions, or for communities to accept
> payment in the way of labor, etc.
>
> -J
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Adam Gibson <ekaggata@???>
> wrote:
>
> It's not quite the same. The blockchain is literally created by
> the miners (the part that actually is useful, the new blocks). The
> land was always there.
>
> Not sure how I feel about land tax, except that it seems eminently
> more logical than the other forms of tax.
>
> On 10/07/2014 07:19 PM, Thomas Hartman wrote:
>>>> In some sense, couldn't the same argument be made for owning
>>>> chunks of a blockchain, if bitcoin or something like it
>>>> becomes a natural monopoly on transactional economic
>>>> activity?
>>>>
>>>> Force address registration on as many people as you can, and
>>>> then tax. Sometimes simple obvious plans work best.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Amir Taaki
>>>> <genjix@???> wrote:
>>>>> Geolibertarians hold that all natural resources – most
>>>>> importantly land – are common assets to which all
>>>>> individuals have an equal right to access; therefore,
>>>>> individuals must pay rent to the community if they claim
>>>>> land as their private property. Rent need not be paid for
>>>>> the mere use of land, but only for the right to exclude
>>>>> others from that land, and for the protection of one's
>>>>> title by government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Geolibertarians view the Land Value Tax as a single tax to
>>>>> replace all other methods of taxation, which are deemed
>>>>> unjust violations of the non-aggression principle.
>>>>>
>>>>> A land value tax (or site valuation tax) is a levy on the
>>>>> unimproved value of land only. A land value tax (LVT) is
>>>>> different from other property taxes, which are taxes on
>>>>> the whole value of real estate: the combination of land,
>>>>> buildings, and improvements to the site.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
>>>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>>>> list: http://unsystem.net
>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>>
>>
>>>>
_______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
> list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>