My response to @ekklesiagora: Libertarian Social Democracy: Delegative Democracy, Land Value Tax, & Universal Basic Income

The following is a response to a publication of @ekklesiagora. The publication that he did is quite complete and extensive, bear in mind that I have read it completely, I spent a good time reading, however, I do not agree with almost anything of it, more than with maybe one or two points, so I decided respond with this publication.

Here the publication of @ekklesiagora: https://steemit.com/georgism/@ekklesiagora/libertarian-social-democracy-delegative-democracy-land-value-tax-and-universal-basic-income

I refer to myself as a libertarian social democrat, by which I mean that my views combine elements of libertarian socialist and social democratic thought.

Since it makes clear its political position I will leave mine, I consider myself libertarian or minarchist, my thinking basically rests on what is described by Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Von Mises and Machiavelli, and although I have also read other authors, These are the ones that I think have influenced me the most.

I am not entirely an anarchist insofar as I do not think that absolute "free association" and consensus are either attainable or really desirable.

I also think that absolute free association is a utopian project for our times, however, I am not opposed to a model of free association at all, for that reason I consider it desirable, I do not understand why it suggests that free association would not be desirable of people, unless you consider that the use of force is positive.

I think that we ought to create assembly democracies in every municipality, small peoples' assemblies, and confederate them into a vast citizens' union in order to build consensus from the bottom-up and then serve as a "go-between" to bargain with the State on behalf of the people, and, if necessary, to force the State to do the will of the people. If the people can gain control of the State through such democratic institutions, then the State as such does not necessarily need to be replaced.

Well, let me tell you that I know this model very well, because in my country, Venezuela, it is implemented: we call it Community Councils:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Communal_Councils

Here is another link to Wikipedia that, from what I see, only exists in Spanish, but you can easily translate it:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comuna_(socialismo)#La_comuna_en_Venezuela

I know this model very well, because in my community we are organized by communal councils, in fact, at some point I had to participate in it, however, this system is really inefficient. Many people say that in Venezuela there was no real socialism, but they lie, although it is true that part of private property was kept here, the truth is that year after year private property is disappearing, and unlike other socialist countries here if has implemented communal models that really include people politically, private companies have been expropriated and in several cases they were handed directly to the people and workers, however, it has proved to be a very inefficient model, in addition to being subject to the hierarchical will of the State and the socialist party. And believe me the worst thing that can happen to a society is that people take control of the State, end up being worse and more tyrants than any other, because in the name of the people they end up with all the freedoms, they forget that they are people and they become bureaucrats with power. The socialist model does not fail because it is poorly implemented, but because it is well implemented.

Proudhon points out that fee-simple property arrangements under capitalism allow landlords and motgagees (banks) to legally steal what rightfully ought to belong to tenants or mortgagors/homeowners. Suppose a man gets a mortgage for 100,000 dollars, buys a piece of real estate with the loan, pays off 75,000 dollars of the loan, and builds an additional 50,000 dollar structure on the property. After having paid off 75% of the loan, the homeowner loses his job because the economy is going through a recession and cannot find new employment in a timely fashion. This causes him to default on the loan. The bank then forecloses on the property and takes his home. The bank still has the 75,000 in payments that he's made, but now has the property too, which contains an additional 50,000-dollar structure contributed entirely by the mortgagor, along with the rest of the property which originally was worth 100,000 dollars.

What do you think about the person who asks for a mortgage from the bank, buys a house with less capital than he owns and then sells it for a higher price and earns a lot of money by leveraging his capital? The loan is a tool, it is not bad in itself, the administration that gives the person is the problem. If you put it to good use, it will be fine, if the use is negative, it will be bad for you. By the way, I also criticize the bankers, but not for the same reason as you, do not believe that I defend the rich for free.

This is just legalized theft―theft that would not be possible apart from the artificial rules and regulations created by our society.

Where is the theft in this? You talk as if the person signing a contract was not aware that you have to comply, if you do your part of the deal, nobody should take anything from you, is not it also a theft to use the bank's money and not pay? The real robbery as I said does not consist in this point, but in another, since the bankers do not really lend their money, but I will not deal with that issue here, because that was not their argument.

he didn't wish to take the land away from the private owners. Instead, we should collect a "land value tax," which can also be looked at as a ground-rent owed to the community for the private use of communal land.

oh great solution, taxes, taxes and more taxes, as we could not have seen, has always been the solution. If you want, you can review my most recent publication:

https://steemit.com/politics/@vieira/big-government-big-problem

The principle that emerged was this: "From each according to their ability: to each according to their need."

Oh, my God! but you are the father of the socialists, here in Venezuela you would be called Chavista, break the principle of equality before the law, break freedom, to meet the needs of people.
I leave you a couple of publications that I did a few days ago about this:

https://steemit.com/politics/@vieira/old-rights-vs-new-rights
https://steemit.com/politics/@vieira/the-problem-of-the-welfare-state

The simplest and easiest way to go about achieving this goal seems to me to be to collect ground-rent for use of land (land value tax) and divide the revenue up evenly as a social dividend, in order to ensure that everyone has an equal share of social wealth.

The only thing you will achieve with this is to increase the money supply, and end up harming the people more, giving a universal income will increase the cost of the labor factor, and anyway the problem would remain the same.

The simple solution is to give poor people money. If everyone gets an equal share of social wealth, poverty is abolished with one stroke. Although the communist anarchists were not proponents of such an approach as this, I am convinced that this approach really is the surest and most realistic way of achieving their economic goals.

Is it really what you propose? is exactly the socialism of the 21st century, is the redistribution of wealth and nothing else, in my country exactly this was done, but let me tell you that it is very negative, it works until the money to redistribute is finished, because it creates a parasitic culture that it ends up depending on the subsidy, people become unproductive, and then there is no one who can fix this problem. Currently, all kinds of subsidies are still being delivered, only that they no longer represent any welfare, because the country is bankrupt.

People need to be free to make their own political decisions, through participatory democracy. If decisions are made by rulers apart from, and above, the people, there is no liberty. Self-government is a necessary condition for liberty.

Yes, the government of my country says that there is also participatory democracy here, I do not think so, in fact, maybe only in Switzerland, which I think is as far away from the model as you describe, is where you can find a participatory democracy, where in fact, the same people voted to prevent them from imposing a universal basic income, which you want to impose.

We are free to leave our jobs and seek employment elsewhere, but most of us are living paycheck-to-paycheck and don't really have the liberty to just walk out.

Look, I lived paycheck-to-paycheck as you say, until one day I quit my job and decided to invest in cryptocurrency, right now they call me all the time because they want me to return to the company, PDVSA, the most important in the country, as well as they offer me multiple jobs, however, I am giving myself the luxury of rejecting them, and I was able to achieve that without any union help, because I have not joined any union, I only went to the company and worked, now that I left they appreciate my work. Obviously if it is an incompetent worker, someone who does not contribute anything, or is easily replaceable, yes it will go wrong, and I can not do anything for him.

If a woman is guaranteed a certain basic income, then she can always afford to leave an abusive partner. It will never be the money that keeps her in an abusive relationship.

False, I'll give you the example of my country, where a direct subsidy is given to mothers and women, among many others, a while ago it meant a desirable amount of money, but today it's nothing because the country is bankrupt, nevertheless, the government has renewed the form in which it will give such subsidy through the "Carnet de la Patria", which is a kind of census, where people are registered, I did not register because I am an opponent and I refuse to participate and receive direct subsidies, and thus receive money from the government. Besides, not all women go out with abusive men because they do not have money, that is more linked to a psychological situation than to an economic one.

he also points out that the market can never be truly democratic if there is a disparity of wealth. Inequality renders the democracy of the marketplace null.

No, market democracy has its points in favor, because if you satisfy social needs, you will be rewarded with more money, which will end up granting more power to your vote. The modern wealth of many billionaires, therefore, inequality, is generated by mercantilism or "Crony Capitalism", that is, something totally contrary to the principles of the free market and laissez faire.

The wealthy will dominate the marketplace and "outvote" the poor. The wealthy can prop up businesses that are really unpopular, and they can even use their wealth to destroy better options.

A company like Walmart can move into a small town and undercut the competition due to the ridiculous amount of money available to them. They can sell all of their produce really cheap, below cost, for a while, until they put the local grocery stores out of business.

If a company like Waltmart or any other company does that, it would have to pay with the costs, that is, produce at a loss for a long time, and it could not maintain this monopolistic tactic for a long time. Monopolies are based on government legislation, high taxes, protectionist practices, whimsical health legislation, and special subsidies.

Just as this taxation and redistribution lays the foundation for a truly democratic marketplace, it would lay the foundation for a truly democratic political system. Wealthy people can buy politicians. Poor people can't.

A million dollars has more weight than a million votes. The wealthy can buy politicians, but poor people can't. The money of the rich and powerful counteracts the votes of the people.

The problem is not that the poor can not buy votes, the problem is that there is a power that can be bought, the problem is that there is a power capable of compelling people, and that this in turn, ends up being bought. And in that I agree, we must eliminate public corruption, how? Limiting the power of the State.

we create an environment in which no one can simply buy politicians. Wealth is power.

Power is force, and violence, at some point faith or religion was power, look at what can be done by people with such radical religious beliefs, in many cases it overcomes the desire for money, money is power, because we give it value to money, in short, the power resides in the coercive force, in this case the State. Personally, I see that in the United States they want to take away the weapons from people, what they do not know, is that it would be fatal, because it would be to give all the power to the State, which will then be corrupted, either by psychopathic politicians, or by corrupt businessmen.

Without the infrastructure provided by government, subsidies provided by government, and the rules and regulations created by the State that allow capitalistic corporations to exist, there would be no such thing as a "corporation." Corporations ought to, therefore, be regarded as the product of society and the State. Consequently, it would make since to say that all corporations are at least partially public property.

Again you fall in the same, the government of my country would be happy to hire you, because you think the same way they do, that's how almost all the companies in the country were expropriated, becoming state property or mixed ownership, the result was the drop in production, and the shortage of basic inputs. The government and the people do not have the power to carry out the economic calculation efficiently, you should know if you read Von Mises as you says.

In 2008, GM got a 13.4 billion dollar bailout, funded by the tax-payers. In my opinion, the American people as a whole ought to now own 13.4 billion dollars worth of shares in GM. Take the banks that were bailed out, give the American people a share of ownership equivalent to the bailout. Every company that takes a government subsidy, give the people a share of ownership equivalent to the subsidy.

He is right, private losses should not be socialized, that is the problem, there should never have been a rescue. I have to put back the example of my country, because what you describe seems exactly the same
to what happens here, here the banks were rescued and then they made a capital flight, they stole the money, later the Socialism came to the country, and the banks they were expropriated by the government, now the entire banking network does not work. I do not defend the bankers, but I think that in the first place, they should never have been rescued.