So I've been examining this political movement of "geolibertarianism." So far, I've failed to find that much on it here on the Mises website, so I was wondering if anyone could offer their personal explanations and views on this seemingly odd philosophy.
If you look up 'geolibertarianism', 'Georgism', 'single tax' and/or 'land value tax', there's a lot of information about it on the site. By and large geolibertarianism (and Henry George) has very strong correlations with Austrian economic foundations, save the bizarre tenet about the nature of property. Leland Yeager wrote a very insightful essay about the parallels of George's economic thoughts and those of the Austrian school in his book 'Is The Market A Test of Truth and Beauty?' which can be downloaded for free.
The whole idea of Georgism about nature belonging to all of humanity seems like it creates quite a paradox.
This view on land property started with Locke and Rousseau, Locke saying that land can be property, Rousseau disagreeing. Rousseauan thought continued to Proudhon, and that view on land property is found in Georgism/ Geolibertarianism.
What kind of paradox, if you would be so kind to elaborate? If anything here is paradoxal is how can one support both the labor theory of property and the notion that land can be property.
Selfownership is an axiom a part of which says we own our actions, and we own our labor. From that follows that what we create or, in Locke's words, what we mix our labor with to remove it from the state of nature- is our property which we can consume, sell or whatever. So the product of our labor is our property.
Homesteading principle is a Lockean addition to that definition of property which says that because exclusive use of land was necessary for acquiring property (eg. growing crops or whatever) it too becomes property. This dialectical jump, or leap of faith, or non sequitur, no matter how we call it, is given a justification of "it is necessary". This justification fails when we have Proudhonian explanation in mind- that land needs not be considered property, ius in re, in order for someone to have exclusive use of it, but it is enough for it to be a "possession", ius ad rem, meaning that homesteading principle is not justified as an addition to the definition of property we have, that follows from the selfownership axiom, that products of labor are propetry.
Being that land is not a product of labor, and that therefore- one cannot have property over it, one can only use or abandon it. That use of land, in order to be exclusive, people agree to be ius ad rem, meaning "a right to a thing" in Latin, that is- "a right exercisable by one person over a particular article in virtue of a contract or obligation incurred by another person in respect to it and which is enforceable only against or through such other person. It is thus distinguished from jus in re which is a complete and absolute dominion over a thing available against all persons".
Being that land is unowned, everybody has the right to go there, by the virtue of his right to freedom (of movement). And being that one, by his use of the land, has impaired others in their right to freedom, he owes them some sort of recompensation, called "land value tax".
As the quote of Thomas Paine (which is on the wikipedia article about geolibertarianism, which you probably read) says: "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
Everything on Earth came from land. Everyone owns everything. That is, until they don't. It never ends at a principle. It's just a 'yeah, but' philosophy.
Not even close.
Taxes don't go "to everyone". They go to a central planner, which inevitably will be a state. The state then assumes de facto ownership of all land. All land necessary for commerce and "improvement" thus slavery. "Yeah, but" and so forth. No, it's veiled communism.
Taxes don't go "to everyone". They go to a central planner, which inevitably will be a state.
"Upside down hierarchical" state, also known as direct democratic society (or anarchist [stateless, classless] society) would make taxes belong to everyone.
All land necessary for commerce and "improvement" thus slavery.
Go troll somewhere else.
What if you don't consent to the tax?
(A limitless tax advocate on an anarcho-capitalist dominated board and I'm the troll...)
What if you come into my store and take stuff and don't consent to paying? And (as I said my first post on this topic) being that land value tax is legitimate and you owe it to the community you live in, not paying it is the same as not paying stuff you took from my store.
Yeah, communism.
Go away troll
Communism
noun
Who's the troll?
And I sure as hell hope you aren't the same foaming mod from the prisonplanet forums...
This has always seemed like a big non-sequiter to me. Man does not have a right to go somewhere due to his "freedom of movement", but rather because going to unowned, unoccupied, and therefore unproductive land does not inhibit the rights and property of others. While occupying land that is not being used diminishes the overall stock of vacant space, it doesn't remove anyone's freedoms or property as, by definition, nobody was using it or producing things from it.*
By the same logic you should also have a universal sales tax, consumption tax, "dating" tax, service-tax, etc. imposed on those who use up the available "resources" of society because it "diminishes the freedom" of others to have the oppurtunity to take part in the goods, services, and individuals. * Please note that hunting grounds or native habitat of species hunted could be defined as being used "productively" and therefore under the scope of some sort of property rights. However, in that case it is not Humanity at large that holds those rights, but the individuals who had harvested the game.
@Papirius
Skeptical Metal: The whole idea of Georgism about nature belonging to all of humanity seems like it creates quite a paradox. Papirius: What kind of paradox, if you would be so kind to elaborate?
Skeptical Metal: The whole idea of Georgism about nature belonging to all of humanity seems like it creates quite a paradox.
Papirius: What kind of paradox, if you would be so kind to elaborate?
The paradox is that, on the one hand, you say that an individual cannot own land because he did not produce it, and, on the other hand, you say that the community owns the land, though the community did not produce it either. My question is: how did the commuity become the owner of the land?
Man does not have a right to go somewhere due to his "freedom of movement", but rather because going to unowned, unoccupied, and therefore unproductive land does not inhibit the rights and property of others.
Doesn't enhibit what rights? Like I said- right to freedom, which in itself includes freedom of movement. I don't see what's non sequitur. You diminish other people's right, you recompesate them, and done deal.
imposed on those who use up the available "resources" of society because it "diminishes the freedom" of others to have the oppurtunity to take part in the goods, services, and individuals.
Land value tax is about your using of land diminishes the freedom of others because it is unowned. Not so with goods, services or individuals. I don't have the right to goods services or individuals, whereas, land being unowned (it cannot be owned) is under my right to freedom (of movement).
My question is: how did the commuity become the owner of the land?
I didn't say it did.
Me: My question is: how did the commuity become the owner of the land? Papirius: I didn't say it did.
Me: My question is: how did the commuity become the owner of the land?
Papirius: I didn't say it did.
If the community does not own the land, why does one owe taxes to the community for using the land?
Papirius: land value tax is legitimate and you owe it to the community you live in, not paying it is the same as not paying stuff you took from my store.
The analogy you make here indicates that you believe that the community owns the land; i.e. the reason I must pay for stuff I take from your store is that you own the stuff, and so the reason that I must pay the community for use of land is....that the community owns the land. If this is not what you meant, then I don't see the logic of your analogy.
If I'm not mistaken, the principle of Georgism is that the land belongs to everyone, however anything created by an individual belongs to that individual. But let's say I build a house...what's to say that a random guy would say that he doesn't want me building that house because it's his land as well as mine?
That's the paradox that I speak of. Call me a noob or whatever, but I still don't understand how it could ever be compatible.
EDIT: And by the way, why should I owe the community anything if I already own the land? The community is not the Earth.
Because everyone who has the right to liberty, has an equal right to go trough or use unowned land. Being that no land can be own, everyone has the right to go trough or use all land (in a community that recognizes the labor theory of property and thus, that land cannot be owned) and because you, by using land, impair the right to freedom of people around you who could use it (to plow, live or just go trough) you owe those people around you some sort of recompensation for impairing their right to freedom.
The analogy you make here indicates that you believe that the community owns the land
The analogy was not directly about ownership but about what should be done is someone doesn't want to pay that which he ought to pay. Just like forcing you to pay me a recompensation you owe me, likewise, it is legitimate for the community to force you to pay recompensation you owe it.
a random guy would say that he doesn't want me building that house because it's his land as well as mine?
I don't know of anyone who has such theories.
You've got it backwards. You do not have the "right" to go through unowned land, rather, it is other individuals who do NOT have the right to use force to stop you. When someone else begins to use an unused area of land for some other purpose, it then becomes YOU who does not have the right to interrupt them or their plans.
Going back to my sales/consumption/dating tax, your response doesn't jive with your logical justification for the land tax. You are justifying the land tax by implying that people's positive liberties are being infringed by other people taking up available resources that they are free to use. However, again using the same justification, you imply that by consuming goods or removing them from the market via purchase, a purchaser is reducing the available options for individuals, and thus decreasing thier capacity for positive liberties. The fact that in one case land is unowned, and in the other, the goods are owned by individuals is irrelevent to your justification.
In the other thread your statements indicated that you define property as the abstract area itself, as distinct from the content of that area (e.g. plowed soil). You claimed that this area cannot be owned, but that the contents of the area can be owned.
Because everyone...has an equal right to go trough or use unowned land area.
Is it possible to use the area without using its contents?
If the area cannot be used without using the contents, then using the area without the permission of the owner of the contents necessarily entails using the contents without the permission of the owner of the contents: i.e. violating his property rights as owner of the contents.
By way of a more concrete example, suppose there is an area 1 mile square. In this area there is plowed soil. Farmer Joe plowed this soil: i.e. he produced it. Hence, he is the owner of this soil. Farmer Joe does not own the area itself. Now, if Bob and Susan come and use the area, doesn't that mean they have to be standing on Farmer Joe's soil? Or digging into it? Or using it in some way? If they are doing this without Farmer Joe's permission, then aren't they violating his property rights?
So we have a case of conflicting rights: the property rights of the owner of the contents of the area are necessarily violated if members of the community at large exercise their alleged right to use the area itself. This cannot stand. Either Bob and Susan have the right to use the area, or Farmer Joe owns the contents of the area. It cannot be both.
Another related issue:
If no one can own land-area itself (as distinct from the contents of that area) because no one produced it, does it not follow that no one can own volume either? For example, I produced a house, but I did not produce the volume is occupies, hence I don't own the volume. And if everyone has a right to use unowned area, then doesn't everyone have a right to use unowned volume? So anyone shoud have a right to use the volume which my house occupies without my consent? And, again, since "the volume" like "the area" is an abstraction, one cannot use it without using its contents. One cannot use the area of land without using the contents of that area. One cannot use the volume of my house without using my house. Since all property exists in 3-dimensions, and occupies volume, this applies to all property. So from your position, it follows that anyone has a right to us any property without the permission of its owner.
LogisticEarth
You've got it backwards. You do not have the "right" to go through unowned land, rather, it is other individuals who do NOT have the right to use force to stop you.
Tometo tomato. When I say I have the right to go whenever I want, that's not a positive right, it just other's don't have the right to stop me.
When someone else begins to use an unused area of land for some other purpose, it then becomes YOU who does not have the right to interrupt them or their plans.
Yes, but a problem appears. I don't have to right to go into your house because it is your property, but the land-area your house is in not, and therefore I do have the right to go there. I have the right, but you are making it impossible by using it to build a house, and therefore, you have to pay recompensation for impairing on my right to freedom.
You are justifying the land tax by implying that people's positive liberties are being infringed by other people taking up available resources that they are free to use.
Right to go whenever I want without anyone stopping me isn't a positive right.
However, again using the same justification, you imply that by consuming goods or removing them from the market via purchase, a purchaser is reducing the available options for individuals, and thus decreasing thier capacity for positive liberties.
Like I said, it's not about any positive right, and second, I don't have the right to goods, because they are owned. I have the right to go wherever I want precisely because territory is not owned.
Minarchist
In the other thread your statements indicated that you define property as the abstract area itself, as distinct from the content of that area (e.g. plowed soil)
Illegitimate property, i.e. it (area itself) cannot be legitimate property.
Is it possible to use the area without using its contents? .....
No, it is not. That's why used areas impair other people's freedom (of movement), because, being that content of an area is someone's property, the area itself, which is not (and is thus under others' right to freedom to go there), becomes physically inaccessible (because if they would try to gain access to it, they would violate someone's property rights). [Same with volume]
Either Bob and Susan have the right to use the area, or Farmer Joe owns the contents of the area. It cannot be both.
Bob and Susan have the right to use the area, but Joe is using it, and Bob and Susan are physically unable to use the area because it contains Joe's property (they cannot use that area because they would violate Joe's property right). Being that Joe's owns that property, but not the area itself (because the property is the product of his labor and the area is not), and being that everyone has the right to unonwned stuff, Joe impairs Bob's and Susan's right to freedom (of movement), and needs to recompensate them. Also Bob and Susan need to recompensate him too for their use of another area which they are using, makin everyone in a community owe a recompensation to others in the community, making land value tax legitimate (in a direct democracy where everyone agrees upon how is the tax used).
If everyone has to pay everyone else for use, then why not just cancel it out and keep their money? What incentive is there by anyone to collect these taxes if they have to put the exact same amount in and get the exact same amount right back out? Makes no sense. 1/1=1 so where does this tax come from? Recompense is compensation for something owed. Not shuffling the same money back and forth as inefficiently as possible through an intermediary for it's own sake.
This after the fact that a democracy of any kind is illegitimate. Of course, even further after the fact that if it were a democracy, then how can you claim this system must be agreed upon before they start voting other people's money away? And who's going to enforce this system? The market would never uphold such asininity. Either it's communism, or HOAs as the ultimate arbiter. Pie in the sky gibberish.
Land value tax is not the same for everyone. Not all land has the same value, nor do all people have (/use) the same amount of land.
start voting other people's money away?
The money you owe me is not your money, it's mine. Likewise with the LVT everone owes to the community around him.
"You owe me money for using land that I have no intention of using. But since you built a house there, I can't use it and you owe me for that."
Thieves will say anything to rationalize their thievery. It's amazing. The whole point of property is to resolve and avoid disputes between individuals. At best, your theory would legitimately apply to those who directly contest another's use of a certain area of land. At least there would be an actual dispute. But you are saying that there is a dispute without a plaintiff.
That is the quintessential statist argument. "On behalf of all nonvictims, I am going to charge you with a crime against the state society."
In the other thread your statements indicated that you define property as the abstract area itself, as distinct from the content of that area (e.g. plowed soil) Illegitimate property, i.e. it (area itself) cannot be legitimate property.
My mistake, that should read "...your statements indicated that you define land as the abstract area itself..."
Is it possible to use the area without using its contents? ..... No, it is not. That's why used areas impair other people's freedom (of movement), because, being that content of an area is someone's property, the area itself, which is not (and is thus under others' right to freedom to go there), becomes physically inaccessible (because if they would try to gain access to it, they would violate someone's property rights). [Same with volume]
Indeed, hence I say your system necessarily involves a conflict of rights - which destroys the entire meaning of rights. The owner of the contents is within his rights to exclude others from the use of his property, and at the same time not within his rights to do so and therefore owes compensation. It is self-contradictory.
Bob and Susan have the right to use the area, but Joe is using it,
Because Joe has a right to use his property. Again, conflicting rights.
and Bob and Susan are physically unable to use the area because it contains Joe's property
They are physically unable to use the area because it is impossible to physically use a non-physical thing such as area in the abstract. Joe is not using it either. No one is using it.
Being that Joe's owns that property, but not the area itself (because the property is the product of his labor and the area is not), and being that everyone has the right to unonwned stuff, Joe impairs Bob's and Susan's right to freedom (of movement), and needs to recompensate them.
Again, conflict of rights. Joe owns the contents, which means (by definition) he has the right to exclude others from their use. And when Joe actually does exclude others from their use, then according to you he violated their rights, and has to pay them compensation. That is, Joe has to pay compensation for acting within his rights. Self-contradictory.
Also Bob and Susan need to recompensate him too for their use of another area which they are using, makin everyone in a community owe a recompensation to others in the community, making land value tax legitimate (in a direct democracy where everyone agrees upon how is the tax used).
Let's consider the mechanics of this proposed "land" tax:
Firstly, you conceded that what goes for abstract area also goes for abstract volume. So not only does Joe owe "the community" for using the area which his farm occupies, but he also owes them for the volume which his tractor occupies, and his house, and his table and chairs, and his coffee mug, and - indeed - even his own body. After all, by being wherever he is, he is preventing others from being in that same place. Taken to its logical conclusion, your system ends up with everyone paying taxes for all of their property, and even for their very existence.
Secondly, how exactly is this tax supposed to be assessed? How does one come up with a non-arbitrary figure for what each person owes?
Thirdly, why does a central authority have the right to this compensation money, rather than the individual victims?
gotlucky
Thieves will say anything to rationalize their thievery. It's amazing.
I agree. Capitalist that try to justify owning areas and employment, and both of those are thievery.
The whole point of property is to resolve and avoid disputes between individuals.
The point of property is designate what is legitimately yours, irrespective of whether it resolves, avoids or starts disputes between individuals.
At best, your theory would legitimately apply to those who directly contest another's use of a certain area of land.
There's no reason for there to be the dispute, because the person using a area has the right to use it (because it's unowned), but that doesn't change the fact that he impairs on the right of others to use it.
Yes, I used "land" in the meaning of territory, area.
The owner of the contents is within his rights to exclude others from the use of his property, and at the same time not within his rights to do so and therefore owes compensation.
He is within his right to exclude others from the use of his property, and the same time not within his right to exclude others form the use of his property? Are you kidding me? Where did I say that? He is within his right to exclude others from the use of his property, but he is not within his right to exclude others from the use of something that is not his property. Which he is doing, and owes recompensation.
There are no conflicting rights. Joe has a right to his property, but the area is not his property.
And when Joe actually does exclude others from their use, then according to you he violated their rights, and has to pay them compensation. That is, Joe has to pay compensation for acting within his rights. Self-contradictory.
You're either stupid or trolling me. Bob and Susan do not have the right to Joe's property, but they do have the right to the area, because it's unowned. You're trying to make it look I'm saying that Bob and Susan have the right to Joe's property or to imply that the area is Joe's property, and I'm saying the oppossite the entire time.
Taken to its logical conclusion, your system ends up with everyone paying taxes for all of their property, and even for their very existence.
It's called land value tax, not land tax. So, what we've been talking about is just a half of it, the basic notion that you don't own the area. But the recompensation is not owed to the community only because the use of area, because then it would have to payed for all property including the body, and the amount of the recompensation would be determined only by the amount of the area (and volume) that the property takes, and would have to be payed to everyone in the world, even if they don't even know about that area, so they would never use it. So, as I say, it's not land tax, it's land value tax, and the value of unimproved land (/area) is created by the community around the one who uses that land, depending on the improvements of the neighbouring land, proximity to good roads, shops, schools, pharmacies etc., and should therefore to be payed to that community.
He is within his right to exclude others from the use of his property, and the same time not within his right to exclude others form the use of his property? Are you kidding me? Where did I say that? He is within his right to exclude others from the use of his property, but he is not within his right to exclude others from the use of something that is not his property. Which he is doing, and owes recompensation. There are no conflicting rights. Joe has a right to his property, but the area is not his property. You're either stupid or trolling me. Bob and Susan do not have the right to Joe's property, but they do have the right to the area, because it's unowned. You're trying to make it look I'm saying that Bob and Susan have the right to Joe's property or to imply that the area is Joe's property, and I'm saying the oppossite the entire time.
For the owner of the contents to exercise his property rights necessarily entails that he violate the rights of other persons to use that area, because to exclude someone from use of the contents necessarily entails excluding them from the use of the area.
And for a person to exercise his right to use whatever area he wants necessarily entails violating the property rights of the owner of the contents of the area he chooses to use, because to use an area necessarily entails using the contents of that area.
To exercise property rights necessarily entails the violation of free-travel rights, and vice versa. These rights are always and everywhere in conflict. There is not one possible instance where one could exercise property rights without violating free-travel rights, or vice versa.
These. Are. Conflicting. Rights.
Uh, I don't follow. You say compensation is owed to the community not only for area use in the first underlined part, and then suddenly we're at the second underlined part where you're saying the tax would be based on land value. Non sequitur. How did we get from the use of abstract area being a rights violation for which you owe compensation, to paying a tax based on land value? What is the connection between the two? In normal cases of restitution, the connection between the tort and the restitution is very simple: the restitution is 2x damages. What is the relationship between the damage that a person causes by using an area and the amount of compensation they owe? First, to answer this, you have to be able to quantify the damage, and you have provided no indication whatsoever of how that might be done.
Also, what is the reasoning behind charging people for area use but not volume use? You just dismissed it out of hand, even though your own rationale for charging people for area use can be equally well applied to volume.
And, finally, I ask you again: if individual's have a right to free travel, and persons who use an area or volume violate the rights of individuals, and individuals are due compensation, why does a central authority have the right to collect this money?
For the owner of the contents to exercise his property rights necessarily entails that he violate the rights of other persons to use that area, because to exclude someone from use of the contents necessarily entails excluding them from the use of the area. He does not violate it, that's too strong of a word, maybe impairs it slightly. That doesn't mean we should call something that is not property- property. These. Are. Conflicting. Rights. There's no conflict in the sense of us having to wonder whether Joe's right to property trumps Bob and Susan's right to freedom of movement, or is it vice versa. Right to property trumps right to liberty, because it a correlate of self-ownership (and the self-ownership principle is a starting axiom of ethics), which are both passive (claim rights), whereas right to liberty is an active one (liberty right), and it is conditioned by the mentioned rights that precede it- that everyone has the right not to be stopped in doing what he wants if he doesn't violate someone's bodily integrity and property. How did we get from the use of abstract area being a rights violation for which you owe compensation, to paying a tax based on land value Impairing on other peoples right to go wherever they want is something necessarily comes, even if you don't own anything else except your body, and even though we said that this can justify recompensation it was also said that it would be superfluous to pay recompensation just for the use of space and ending up just shuffling the same money pointlessly around, but the more valuable the area, more people would actually contest it's use. And being that the value of a specific area is produced by the neighbouring community as a collective, therefore LVT is legitimate if that community determines how it is used (presumably to benefit the whole community).
and you have provided no indication whatsoever of how that might be done.
The area, not being property at all, could not be sold (or rented), only used and abandoned, so there would be no prices signals for the determination of value of the unimproved land, so I guess it would be settled any way community agrees on how to measure the desireablity of the land within itself.
lso, what is the reasoning behind charging people for area use but not volume use?
Because as I said, it would not be a state of nature where if you stop using an inch of area, the next second someone else can start using it, there would be a social contract giving each member of society ius ad rem over the land he uses continuosly to some degree (the degree being determined by the society itself), and that ius ad rem would surely include the "cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" principle.
You just dismissed it out of hand
Do you even read what I write? When talking about area I said it is the same with volume, I didn't dismiss it.
if individual's have a right to free travel, and persons who use an area or volume violate the rights of individuals, and individuals are due compensation
Impairment of the right to freedom (of movement) was just the half of the it, it is just an explanation of the fact that some sort of recompensation is justified. But as I said- it is not "land tax", but "land value tax", which is own to the community as a collective, because the community as a collective produces the value of land.
why does a central authority have the right to collect this money?
It doesn't, usless it is controled by the community to which the LVT is entitled to.
There's no conflict in the sense of us having to wonder whether Joe's right to property trumps Bob and Susan's right to freedom of movement, or is it vice versa. Right to property trumps right to liberty, because it a correlate of self-ownership (and the self-ownership principle is a starting axiom of ethics), which are both passive (claim rights), whereas right to liberty is an active one (liberty right), and it is conditioned by the mentioned rights that precede it- that everyone has the right not to be stopped in doing what he wants if he doesn't violate someone's bodily integrity and property.
Here you are clearly and explicitly stating that Farmer Joe's property rights over the contents of the area trump Bob's and Susan's right to use the area. If this is so, then Farmer Joe cannot owe compensation for forcibly excluding others from use of the area which his property occupies. It is a complete perversion of the concept of rights and/or the concept of compensation to say that Farmer Joe is within his rights to do X and that he owes compensation for doing X. If you want to have the land-tax, fine, but it cannot be justified as compensation.
the more valuable the area, more people would actually contest it's use
Since one cannot actually use abstractions, and since all value derives from utility, it make little sense to speak of the value of an abstract area.
the value of a specific area is produced by the neighbouring community as a collective
the value of unimproved land (/area) is created by the community around the one who uses that land, depending on the improvements of the neighbouring land, proximity to good roads, shops, schools, pharmacies etc.
Even granting arguendo that it makes sense to say that areas have values, I still don't see the connection you're trying to make here between what exists in the vicinity of the area and the value of the area. This seems like an analogy to the idea that location affects real estate prices, but it seems a highly improper analogy, because real estate can have a price while area (since it cannot be sold) cannot have a price. Without the price mechanism, there is no rational way to value anything.
Exactly. It would be entirely arbitrary. This in itself is an argument against the idea that tge tax is compensation; for how can you claim Farmer Joe owes compensation when you have absolutely no idea what the compensation is. That is, the problem here is not only technical. The impossibility of defining the compensation suggests that, in fact, no compensation is owed. By way of analogy, suppose I take you to court for trespassing. I claim you owe me compensation for violating my rights, but I cannot identify what damage you actually caused me, and so I cannot justify any figure for compensation. What this means is that in fact I have no evidence that you owe me anything at all.
Sorry, I don't follow. Could you elaborate?
which is own to the community as a collective, because the community as a collective produces the value of land.
It seems to me that two ideas here are being confused. On the one hand, there's the question of what determines the value of the land. You say that (in some sense unknown to me) the community produces the value of the land. But on the other hand, there is the totally separate question of whose rights are being violated and who is therefore owed compensation.
If you want to establish the right of "the community" to collect a tax, you need to explain either (1) how the landowners violate the rights of the community and therefore owe compensation to the community, or (2) if the landowners are violating the rights of individuals, how the community acquires the right to collect compensation on their behalf. If you take option #1, you need to explain why the community has rights in the first place. Rights (per your view) come from self-ownership, and "the community" does not have self-ownership. If you take option #2, you are probably going to have to invoke some form of social contract view - and in that case, you might as well drop the whole compensation scheme and just say everyone agreed to pay plain old taxes.
It is a complete perversion of the concept of rights and/or the concept of compensation to say that Farmer Joe is within his rights to do X and that he owes compensation for doing X.
He is not within his rights to limit their right to liberty, it is just that they are not within their right to violate his property.
The starting premise is false. Everything tangible uses some area.
Even granting arguendo that it makes sense to say that areas have values
They have values by the fact of being desired. People want their house or farmfield or store to be on good location conductive to it's purpose.
I still don't see the connection you're trying to make here between what exists in the vicinity of the area and the value of the area. This seems like an analogy to the idea that location affects real estate prices
Something like that, yes.
but it seems a highly improper analogy, because real estate can have a price while area (since it cannot be sold) cannot have a price. Without the price mechanism, there is no rational way to value anything.
Not that I consider price mechanism rational, but maybe LVT can be seen then as the price that the community around you charges for increacing the desirability of the land you live on.
Exactly. It would be entirely arbitrary.
It would be cenrtainly less arbitrary then the price mechanism.
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos is Latin for "whoevers is the land, theirs is all the way up to Heaven and down to Hell" and stands for a principle that one doesn't hold only to the (two-dimensional) plot of land itself, but also to the space above and the ground under it.
On the one hand, there's the question of what determines the value of the land. You say that (in some sense unknown to me) the community produces the value of the land. But on the other hand, there is the totally separate question of whose rights are being violated and who is therefore owed compensation.
The second question is just there an expansion of the notion that land (/area) cannot be property.
how the landowners violate the rights of the community and therefore owe compensation to the community, or
By impairing on the right of anyone else in the community to use that particular land. If a villager uses the are that is the nearest to the centar of the village, and thus has to walk the shortest way to his field and to carry his products the shortest way to the marketplace, of cource that other people in the village would want to use that same land, especially among the ones who have to walk and carry their products much more than he does. Everyone has the same right to that area, that is- everyone has the same right to go wherever and use whatever they want that is unowned, and the area is unowned. So, he is using more valueable land then others and the value of the land is made precisely by those others who improved the areas around him (made the roads, the marketplace etc) so it is proper for him to pay to them a sum as a price for what can be said to be a product of their labor, because the value of a an unimproved plot of land depends on the improvements of the neighbouring land.
if the landowners are violating the rights of individuals, how the community acquires the right to collect compensation on their behalf.
The community is a sum of individuals. Also, anyone other then a direct-democraticaly organized community is illegitimate to collect the compensation.
you need to explain why the community has rights in the first place.
Community can have property. In a mutualist society, all factories and firms, all businesses that include more then one worker would be communally owned by the workers of that factory and firm, this sort of organization exists today by the name of worker cooperative. Similarly with housing, with families considered something of a housing coop. So you could say that a community can have rights.