I used to be a radical libertarian. Now I am more of minarchist, or meritocratist.
At some point in history, someone must have first claimed ownership
over some resource that was not previously considered "owned".
Not all resources. I think the black and white cases from libertarian points of view is when an object is produced by humans hand. Not when it's natural resources. Natural resources is grey area and there are several practical win win way to resolve that.
Most libertarians objects to Income taxes. You see. Once you produce something. It's yours.
Say you build a house on top of a land. The house is definitely yours. The land, well, that's a bit of grey. I like George Hendry on this one. Yap. The house is all yours. There is no grey area there.
Recognizing that your house is a property is not only "right" in libertarian sense, it's also very beneficial for society. Imagine if you don't have property right for that house. Imagine if government does not actively protect those house. Then someone would just seize your house. Then no body would build houses, and everyone will just seize houses. That would be sucks right. So yea, no grey there. Your house is your property because you build it.
In doing so, they must by definition have (presumably
non-consensually, since who would consent unless coerced?) deprived
everyone else of the (previously shared) benefit of that resource.
Therefore, private property is theft, and taxation merely a form of
This is actually a good point. However, your position is too extreme here. Rather than "theft" why don't we call it, "renting". Land owners are really borrowing land from society that not only tolerate their use of land but continually protect the land owners. That means land owners should be tax reasonably for that rent.
And I think George Hendry has a good solution here.
See. You build a house on a land.
The house belong to you
The land? We can say it's partially belong to the state/society. And owners continually get the benefit of the security and infrastructure build by the state. Owners should pay maintenance fee for this.
So you buy usage land from the state/society. And then you keep paying the state/society some tax for protection of your land proportional to land tax.
How much tax for land should be? I don't know. Let the states compete. Whichever can produce good infrastructure, with good security on a peace of area with lower tax rate will have digital nomad and rich people moving there. If I enjoy a safe and secure life with access to shops and stuff, I won't mind paying tax there. If I don't like it, I can always go somewhere else.
So yes, I agree with you. Taxing property and using it to pay citizens can be a reasonable restorative justice. However, I do not think owning a house or a land as "theft". Let's not get extreme here. I would oppose any government that just seize land. That's stupid. Why would you do that? Taxing land fine. Seizing? What for?
Now let's take a look how we can use this principle to solve Palestine and Israel conflict.
The land that Israel occupy is in dispute.
However, it used to be a desert. And now it's filled with metropolis.
What about the infrastructure, the road, the building, the working democratic society on those land? That is not in dispute. 95% of the land value, and all the buildings on top of it belongs to the jewish people. They build the land.
Well, may be multiple nations can have some sort of rules. Land, especially those who are in dispute, should be taxed, say at a rate of .01% for non disputed land, or .05% for land that really should have belong to others. Notice 90% of land value is created, not just there by it self.
You can say that American seize Indian land. So what happened? The indians live in metropolists with fiber optic and roads and sky scrapper, and this evil whites come seizing them all? Of course not.
The empty land, may arguably belong, at least partially to the indians. But land value in US would have been very close to 0 if not for all the road the fiber optic and who knows what the "whites" build.
That's why I am advocating very little tax to land for the UN. The government that controls the land can tax the land for 1% rate and keep the rest as profit.
We use the money to I don't know, buy some cheap land and give room for refugees? Especially refugee that are replaced.
Tada. Problem solved right? Much less war here. Much cheaper solutions than war.
If latter some palestinians really want to go back to their land, all they need to do is to build their place to be as advance as israel, earn money honestly, and brought this whole issue up to court of justice, and rebuy the land. Notice that palestinians are the not only refugees there. Many jewish land are also seized by arab nations. That too will go through the same process.
Cheaper than war.