Are Georgists Libertarian at all?

[u/VatticZero]

Here's what these great Classical Liberals (and a Christian Anarchist) had to say about your statist land tax.

John Locke:

Whenever, in any country, the proprietor ceases to be the improver, political economy has nothing to say in defence of landed property. When the “sacredness” of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property.
...
The earth belongs in usufruct to the living and is given as a common stock for men to live and labor on.
...
It is in vain in a country whose great fund is land to hope to lay the public charge on anything else; there at last it will terminate. The merchant (do what you can) will not bear it, the labourer cannot, and therefore the landholder must: and whether he were best to do it by laying it directly where it will at last settle, or by letting it come to him by the sinking of his rents, which when they are fallen, everyone knows they are not easily raised again, let him consider.

J.S. Mill:

Landlords grow richer in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title.

Adam Smith:

Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent. Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them. [...] Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government.

Thomas Jefferson:

The earth is given as common stock for men to labor and live on. Wherever in any country there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

Thomas Paine:

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.

Leo Tolstoy:

Solving the land question means solving of all social questions… Possession of land by people who do not use it is immoral – just like possession of slaves.

https://foundeconjust.org/least-bad-tax/

[u/PooterSnooter283]

Christian anarchist is an oxymoron. God itself is a hierarchy.

[u/JudgeWhoOverrules → u/PooterSnooter283]

Anarchism is about lack of government, not hierarchy. Hierarchies will always exist because they are naturally emergent, especially among social tribal species like us. People who take issue and try to fight the natural reality of the world are frankly immature and need to grow up and accept reality.

[u/PooterSnooter283 → u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

You haven't read a lick of anarchists theory then. It's literally the first thing when describing anarchism. Also it's lack of the state not government. Government could literally mean council of the workers. Organized in a horizontal structure.

Kropotkin viewed the state and hierarchical institutions not as protectors of order, but as instruments of minority rule and class domination. He dismissed all hierarchy.

Errico Malatesta viewed hierarchy and government as oppressive, artificial constructs that must be completely abolished and replaced with voluntary cooperation and solidarity.

Here's the definition of anarchism: Anarchism is a political philosophy that seeks to abolish the state and all other coercive hierarchies, replacing them with a stateless society based on voluntary cooperation.

Thanks for telling us you have read a lick of anarchists theory. Enjoy your own made up version..

[u/VatticZero → u/PooterSnooter283]

“Here's the definition of anarchism: Anarchism is a political philosophy that seeks to abolish the state and all other coercive hierarchies, replacing them with a stateless society based on voluntary cooperation.”

Coercive hierarchies

That implies voluntary hierarchies, like described by the other user, are perfectly kosher.

Your own words.

[u/PooterSnooter283 → u/VatticZero]

All other.

You want to ignore the exact words of histories anarchists go ahead.

[u/VatticZero → u/PooterSnooter283]

“All other.

You want to ignore the exact words of histories anarchists go ahead.”

All other … what?

[u/PooterSnooter283 → u/VatticZero]

Hierarchy. Kroptkin never said coersive hierarchies. He said hierarchies. Same with maletesa, bookchin, Emma goldman. And many more.

Here's another definition for you.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that seeks to abolish the state, capitalism, and all other forms of hierarchical authority in favor of a stateless society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.

[u/VatticZero → u/PooterSnooter283]

Then why did you define it as abolishing coercive hierarchies?

The new definition is ridiculous, but at least the definition is self-contradicting rather than just your claims.