Convert me!

[Georgist]

I've spent the last half-an-hour or so lurking these boards; most of the members seem rather intelligent, albeit somewhat irrational at times (though what could be expected from a politically themed forums). I'm always opened-minded to rational discussion and I would like you guys to try and persuade me to adopt you apparently superior opinions.

I'm from a middle-lower class family (I think; in Australia we don't really have much of a class system) and attend a public school. I think I'm politically a georgist or a geolibertarian. The fact that one can claim ownership over land is quite absurd to me; sure you bought the land but what right did the previous owner have to sell it? Originally some one (government or individual, it doesn't really matter) just decided that a plot of land suddenly belonged to them.

Taxation I see as an unwanted and unfair imposition on someone's liberties. When someone performs a job for someone else there is an agreement between the two aforementioned parties that in exchange for a service money will be given; however the government, an unwanted external entity, intrudes upon them, demanding a cut of the payment when they really have no right to do so.

Do your best!

[CommieTroll]

Well you haven't given us much to work with. We can't convert you in a few posts on an internet form, it takes a lot of learning and understanding. What are your views on Marxism?

[Tommy4ever]

All value in society is produced by labour. If this is true then a property owner contributes nothing to the production process and is essentially unnecessary. If they are unnecessary, then why do they gain the lion's share of the wealth produced by working people. This is clearly an exploitative practise. Therefore wage labour inherently leads to exploitation and is wrong.

Since capitalism is essentially a society in which wage labour is the dominant relation between the worker and property owner then capitalism itself is rooted in the exploitation of working people. So perhaps it would be better to adopt a system of production without the exploitation of working people?

A very vague basic idea for others to build on for you. :p

[Georgist]

Well you haven't given us much to work with. We can't convert you in a few posts on an internet form, it takes a lot of learning and understanding. What are your views on Marxism?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs I think is a nice quote as it seems to suggest a efficient society. However life isn't an RTS and people have liberties and rights that must be respected.

[CommieTroll]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs I think is a nice quote as it seems to suggest a efficient society. However life isn't an RTS and people have liberties and rights that must be respected.

Such as?

[Georgist]

All value in society is produced by labour. If this is true then a property owner contributes nothing to the production process and is essentially unnecessary. If they are unnecessary, then why do they gain the lion's share of the wealth produced by working people. This is clearly an exploitative practise. Therefore wage labour inherently leads to exploitation and is wrong.

Since capitalism is essentially a society in which wage labour is the dominant relation between the worker and property owner then capitalism itself is rooted in the exploitation of working people. So perhaps it would be better to adopt a system of production without the exploitation of working people?

A very vague basic idea for others to build on for you. :p

The owner owns the company; he created the company; the workers agree to work for his company. If the workers aren't happy with their wages they should go on strike, or otherwise all work together to create their own company for which they each own an equal share of.

[Georgist]

Such as?

Not being forced into labour they do not want to do.

[Tjis]

Why do you wish to be 'converted'? What do you consider right and/or wrong with today's world, if anything?

[CommieTroll]

Not being forced into labour they do not want to do.

Well what exactly do you mean by being forced into Labour? As in the Soviet model of Socialism? Why should someone that doesn't contribute get their share? Unless they have a serious condition that disables them from working.
If so then you are gravely mistaken

[Georgist]

Why do you wish to be 'converted'? What do you consider right and/or wrong with today's world, if anything?

I wish to hear peoples opinions and have a rational discussion, "Lets Argue!" seemed a bit too aggressive.

I think it's wrong how millonaires and billionaires in the mining industry can take from the earth materials which they have no right to own and get away with paying very little tax on doing thus. Meanwhile the middle and lower classes are taxed relatively ludicrous amounts for their labour, which the government doesn't own. I'm also a vegan but I don't want to go into the evils of meat consumption and instead stick to economic politics.

[Tim Cornelis]

The owner owns the company; he created the company; the workers agree to work for his company. If the workers aren't happy with their wages they should go on strike, or otherwise all work together to create their own company for which they each own an equal share of.

I think this is an interesting position, not the argument itself but from a geolibertarian perspective.

You argue taxation is unjust because it requires coercion. However, you argue--like capitalists--that wage labour is voluntary exchange and therefore just. Nobody is forced to work, therefore wage labour is not exploitative. If workers don't like it they can start their own business.

But we can, roughly, apply the same logic to taxation. If you do not like taxation: nobody is forcing you to stay. You can start your own country, e.g. create an island in international waters were you are not forced to pay taxes.

Indeed, no physical force is used to make people work, but by that logic a "forced landing" is voluntary. The pilots in the crashing plane are not physically forced by anyone to land, they could crash their plane if they'd choose to. But this ignores that people need to survive. Just like the argument "wage labour is voluntary exchange" ignores there is a financial imperative to work, the need for survival forces people to acquire the means of life and therefore to sell their labour (wage labour), body (prostitution) or steal. Private ownership of land (which you rightly oppose) and the means of production means a privileged minority (those who can afford it) have monopolised (exclusive control and ownership) the means of production, thereby excluding the vast majority of the population. As a result they have no choice but to sell their labour, and thereby lose their autonomy.

Wage labour inherently limits freedom of the workers.

If you say that workers who don't like wage labour could start their own business you are saying:
1) Only people with enough money may be free
2) Only people with enough intelligence to start a business may be free

Most people simply do not have the financial and intellectual means of being an entrepreneur or self-employed and thereby free themselves from the authority of the boss.

I don't understand how anyone could look at sweatshops, where people sometimes work 24 hour intensive shifts,for a meager pay and see freedom. That's absurd!

[Georgist]

I think this is an interesting position, not the argument itself but from a geolibertarian perspective.

You argue taxation is unjust because it requires coercion. However, you argue--like capitalists--that wage labour is voluntary exchange and therefore just. Nobody is forced to work, therefore wage labour is not exploitative. If workers don't like it they can start their own business.

But we can, roughly, apply the same logic to taxation. If you do not like taxation: nobody is forcing you to stay. You can start your own country, e.g. create an island in international waters were you are not forced to pay taxes.


That is completely contrary to my logic. The owner rightfully owns the company. The government has no right to exert force over it's citizens or land.



If you say that workers who don't like wage labour could start their own business you are saying:
1) Only people with enough money may be free
2) Only people with enough intelligence to start a business may be free


If you say that workers who don't like taxed labour could create their own island you are saying:
1) Only people with enough money may be free
2) Only people with enough intelligence to create an island may be free

[CommieTroll]

The owner owns the company; he created the company; the workers agree to work for his company. If the workers aren't happy with their wages they should go on strike, or otherwise all work together to create their own company for which they each own an equal share of.

They have no other choice other than to work in the Capitalist system, the company owner exploits the workers, he gets surplus value from selling products he didn't make

[Georgist]

They have no other choice other than to work in the Capitalist system, the company owner exploits the workers, he gets surplus value from selling products he didn't make

The capitalist system isn't so much a system but lack there of. And as I said they do have a choice to make their own company...

[Tim Cornelis]

That is completely contrary to my logic. The owner rightfully owns the company. The government has no right to exert force over it's citizens or land.

You are begging the question. Why does the owner rightfully owns the company? I don't agree to that at all. The means of production, because people dependent on it and their livelihood should be owned in common. Private ownership of the means of production creates authoritarian social relations: the domination of the few over the many.


If you say that workers who don't like taxed labour could create their own island you are saying:
1) Only people with enough money may be free
2) Only people with enough intelligence to create an island may be free

You missed the point. I do think that taxation is coercive and that in a free society it cannot exist. It was a reductio ad absurdum. I do not advocate the above.

You say: everyone who does not like wage labour (because it limits freedom) could start their own business so they are no longer subject to the will of their employer.

Using your logic one could say: everyone who does not like taxation (because it limits freedom) could start their own nation so they are no longer subject to the will of a government.

What your argument presupposes is that everyone always has enough intelligence and financial means to start a business, and not go bankrupt--which is not the case. Since this is not the case only people with enough money (and intelligence) can be free!

This is no different than the slavery system as existed in Brazil. In this system slaves could buy their freedom if they had enough money. Only those with enough money were able to buy their freedom. Needless to say, just because the potential of buying your freedom exists does not justify a system which inherently limits freedom, whether private property or slavery.


The capitalist system isn't so much a system but lack there of. And as I said they do have a choice to make their own company...

And slaves in Brazil had to the choice to buy their freedom. But it's not a genuine choice because not everyone has the financial means to do so! I don't think anyone can expect 12 year old children who have never enjoyed an education in whatever form to start a business with the meager pay (1 dollar a day/hour) which they use to buy food and clothing.

It's not a genuine choice if you do not have the ability to choose it, yet that's precisely what you implicitly argue.

[CommieTroll]

Which requires money which the proletariat doesn't necessarily have and their only option is to go into debt and in the end will only guarantee the continuation of the Capitalist system. They can go on strike, yes, but they have families to provide for. By starting their own company do you mean a worker run co-op?

[Ism]

That is completely contrary to my logic. The owner rightfully owns the company. The government has no right to exert force over it's citizens or land.

You're right, but you must also consider that he is in fact exploiting the workers. However, the owner is not an evil man, just another owner caught up in the system of competition that is capitalism. The capitalist system forces the owner to act this way by exploiting his workers as much as possible, for else he'd be cut out of the competition and shut his factory down, decreasing his living standards. This fucks up the environment, the climate and the lives of billions of people on the planet. Even though the worker and the owner are both victims of the system, they are enemies within the system. The solution is however not to collaborate between the classes (which is a fascist solution), but to neglect the owners' current rights to own what they own. This way, the system would collapse if there were no private property* and replaced by a new system when the ownership turned from private to public. This way, not only the redistribution of wealth would be altered dramatically, but also the way of producing things. The factory owner would no more be in charge of running the entire factory, but all the workers at that very factory would participate in decision-making, administration and all the other things a CEO does. Of course, know-how is needed at some points, but the goal is to make as many of the economic processes democratic as possible by letting every worker being heard rather than just the boss(es). All things in this world is done with a profit motive, but the motive of the socialist economic system is to meet everyone's requests. This is political and economical democracy at its finest.

*=There is a distinction between private property and personal property. Private property is the means that can be used to exploit workers i.e. factories etc. whereas personal property is clothing, homes, televisions and whatever. Those items are not used for exploitation, therefore our theory does not deal with personal property, although some leftists have different opinions upon personal property.

What we're basically wanting to do is turning everyone into a CEO governing noone but themselves and governing society in collaboration with all the other CEO's (people :)) with whom they are united under the saying from Marx you quoted yourself. How we turn everyone to CEO's is by altering property rights. This is not easy, however, since we are constantly in class warfare with the owners (capitalists). Their interests conflict with ours, and therefore, we don't like them :) Not because we think they're "evil" (even though some of the owners are genuine scumbags), but it's the nature of the system that forces us to do so if we want to improve our living standards, our environment and our general well-being.

[Georgist]

You are begging the question. Why does the owner rightfully owns the company? I don't agree to that at all. The means of production, because people dependent on it and their livelihood should be owned in common. Private ownership of the means of production creates authoritarian social relations: the domination of the few over the many.


You agree that without the workers the company will be nothing? Well those workers chose to work for the company; nothing is being forced upon them. The workers are capable of creating unions and going on strike if they're not happy with their conditions.




And slaves in Brazil had to the choice to buy their freedom. But it's not a genuine choice because not everyone has the financial means to do so! I don't think anyone can expect 12 year old children who have never enjoyed an education in whatever form to start a business with the meager pay (1 dollar a day/hour) which they use to buy food and clothing.

It's not a genuine choice if you do not have the ability to choose it, yet that's precisely what you implicitly argue.

As I said, the company is nothing without them. They should go on strike.

For what it's worth I support a public education system; it prevents people from being born into classes and instead allows those who put in effort to succeed.

[Fopeos]

Georgist, Just curious, why do you disagree with private ownership of land but agree with private ownership of means of production (companies)? In my opinion, one is merely an extension of the other.

[Tim Cornelis]

You agree that without the workers the company will be nothing? Well those workers chose to work for the company; nothing is being forced upon them. The workers are capable of creating unions and going on strike if they're not happy with their conditions.

As I said, the company is nothing without them. They should go on strike.

For what it's worth I support a public education system; it prevents people from being born into classes and instead allows those who put in effort to succeed.

You're not really addressing the question here, namely the issue of freedom. All social hierarchy undermines individual autonomy. Wage labour is intrinsically hierarchical, and wage labour therefore inherently limits freedom. Wage labour is the product of private property.

Conclusion: private property limits freedom.

Furthermore, I have already addressed the issue of "nobody is forcing you to work"! So I will simply quote myself and hope you will reply.

"You say: everyone who does not like wage labour (because it limits freedom) could start their own business so they are no longer subject to the will of their employer.

Using your logic one could say: everyone who does not like taxation (because it limits freedom) could start their own nation so they are no longer subject to the will of a government.

What your argument presupposes is that everyone always has enough intelligence and financial means to start a business, and not go bankrupt--which is not the case. Since this is not the case only people with enough money (and intelligence) can be free!

This is no different than the slavery system as existed in Brazil. In this system slaves could buy their freedom if they had enough money. Only those with enough money were able to buy their freedom. Needless to say, just because the potential of buying your freedom exists does not justify a system which inherently limits freedom, whether private property or slavery.


The capitalist system isn't so much a system but lack there of. And as I said they do have a choice to make their own company...

And slaves in Brazil had to the choice to buy their freedom. But it's not a genuine choice because not everyone has the financial means to do so! I don't think anyone can expect 12 year old children who have never enjoyed an education in whatever form to start a business with the meager pay (1 dollar a day/hour) which they use to buy food and clothing.

It's not a genuine choice if you do not have the ability to choose it, yet that's precisely what you implicitly argue."

--------------

Question to Georgist:
Do you think voluntarily selling yourself into slavery is justified?

If someone sells himself for 24 hours a fay for the coming 100 years with no monetary compensation, do you think this slave is free?

[danyboy27]

For what it's worth I support a public education system; it prevents people from being born into classes and instead allows those who put in effort to succeed.

sorry to contradict you sir, but this is bullshit. I was raised in a public education system and it dosnt stop the people from being born into classes.

most of the other poor kid i have been with at school are either in jail, killed themselves or do some menial low paid job.

above education, money tend to buy social and cultural activities necessary for the developement of a person socially and psychologically, it can also buy better food necessary to a more healthy developpement.

The material condition in wich we are raised have a tremendous effect on what kind of person we become when we grow up.

You might deny it, but you are part of a class system that keep the rich in power and the poor in line.

[Tim Cornelis]

Georgist, Just curious, why do you disagree with private ownership of land but agree with private ownership of means of production (companies)? In my opinion, one is merely an extension of the other.

That's quite simple: land is not the product of human labour and should therefore not be owned privately. The means of production is the product of human labour and may therefore be owned privately.

Of course, this ignores--as I stated above several times--that private property of the means of production inherently creates authoritarian social relations. And freedom and authoritarian social relations are not compatible.

[Commissar Rykov]

You agree that without the workers the company will be nothing? Well those workers chose to work for the company; nothing is being forced upon them. The workers are capable of creating unions and going on strike if they're not happy with their conditions.



As I said, the company is nothing without them. They should go on strike.

For what it's worth I support a public education system; it prevents people from being born into classes and instead allows those who put in effort to succeed.
But they are forced to work otherwise you must starve and die. This is no different than slavery the slave can work or he can die. This is economic coercion and one would have to be rather blind or naive to claim Taxation is Coercion while ignoring the blatant and hostile coercion of capitalism against the Workers.

[thefinalmarch]

I think; in Australia we don't really have much of a class system
We most certainly do. You might be thinking of a formal caste system, or some obscure classification of people based on some a mix of income and education (which seems to be the current thing with sociology). The Marxist concept of class is pretty much unique from all other conceptions of it in that it sees class as being determined by an individual's relationship to the "means of production" (that is, anything which is involved in the production process. This includes machinery used to produce and distribute goods, but more broadly it includes the infrastructure which the processes of production and distribution rely on, e.g. power lines, roads, etc.).

As for the main classes Marxism is concerned with, there exists the "[haute]-bourgeoisie" or [big] capitalist class, which is defined as "the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour.” - Engels, Communist Manifesto 1888 English edition, as well as the "proletariat" or working class, being defined as "the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.” - Engels, Communist Manifesto 1888 English edition. The bourgeoisie are considered to be the ruling class in modern capitalist society because they hold pretty much all conceivable political power ("The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." - that is to say that government today is primarily concerned with maintaining the inherent class interests of the whole bourgeoisie, such as ensuring the existence of private property - which of course the capitalists are dependent on - and the expansion of global markets, by force if necessary).

The existence of class in this sense is immediately obvious, and much more meaningful than, say, arbitrary income ranges (although capitalists tend to be wealthy, they are not defined as being bourgeois on the basis of how much cash they make. Correlation is not causality, and so we reject the idea that how much cash you have determines what class you belong to). Individuals who do not own or run businesses have no other choice but to find employment in order to subsist. Furthermore, it is evident that whenever workers try to take economic or political power, they are stopped from doing so by the forces of the bourgeois state - cops, soldiers, etc. The working class is systemically denied any meaningful role in the administration/governance of society - that is to say we ourselves don't take part in running society, though as a libertarian you've probably already figured that much out.

As for exploitation, it refers to the extraction of surplus value from workers' wages. Whenever the worker is paid, the worker is robbed. Likely you would reply that this process is necessary for businesses to stay profitable and generally, uh, continue existing. You'd be right. And that is one of the many reasons why we oppose this way of producing things - this "mode of production" - because it necessitates that workers don't receive the full fruits of their labour, and that capitalists make a profit despite very rarely performing any actual labour. Again, you'll probably find yourself arguing that capitalists have an inalienable right to profit from their workers' labour, given that they own it, they started the company from scratch (that they built the means of production themselves, or something similar) and workers knowingly entered into a contract... &c., &c. Truth be told, the vast, vast majority of factories, workshops, stores, and other means of production that you see were constructed from workers' own labour, not the capitalists' who have illegitimately appropriated them. This is why we call for their re-appropriation by their rightful owners - the workers.

[Tjis]

I wish to hear peoples opinions and have a rational discussion, "Lets Argue!" seemed a bit too aggressive.

I think it's wrong how millonaires and billionaires in the mining industry can take from the earth materials which they have no right to own and get away with paying very little tax on doing thus. Meanwhile the middle and lower classes are taxed relatively ludicrous amounts for their labour, which the government doesn't own. I'm also a vegan but I don't want to go into the evils of meat consumption and instead stick to economic politics.

First then, some ground definitions. Most communists don't use the upper/middle/lower class distinction. This income-based distinction represents nothing but a difference in buying power. It doesn't really tell us much about their daily experience.
Instead, communists distinguish based on where one's income comes from. The class which derives its income from selling their labor-power in exchange for a wage or salary is called the working class, or proletariat. The class which derives its income from property, such as mines, land, factories or financial derivatives is called the capitalist class, or bourgeoisie. This distinction is far more useful in analyzing modern society. Much of the upper class is the bourgeoisie, Much of the lower class is the proletariat, and the middle class is divided, with some being proletarians, some being capitalists and some somewhere inbetween.

What makes the proletariat/bourgeoisie distinction so useful? Because it shows a rather glaring contradiction. Here you have all these capitalists owning so much, but their property by itself is rather useless. Land is useless to capitalists unless a cash crop is planted on it, or the land is resold after being developed to raise its value (such as building houses there). A factory is useless unless commodities are produced there. A mine is useless without someone mining there. In short, Only when work is done on them, or with them, can new value be created. This even applies to financial derivatives since they are dependent on the buying and selling of non-financial commodities, which is dependent on someone creating these commodities.

Meanwhile, workers generally own nothing that could provide them with an income. Most of them own no land where they could grow crops and they own no machines which they could use to create commodities. And even if they did, it is hard to do so at market prices, since large-scale production in a factory or in the bio-industry produces more commodities in less time, and therefore results in cheaper commodities. Because of this, workers have no choice but to accept a deal that is far more beneficial to their employer than to themselves.

This deal is as follows: In exchange for enough money to live for some time (at varying standards of living for different jobs), all a worker's labor-time is directed at an activity which'll create value using the capitalist's property. This results in workers creating all the value for which they only get a mere fraction in the form of a wage or a salary. The rest of the value becomes the capitalist's profit, which he can then re-invest in new machines and hiring even more workers. Or they can use it to finance the campaign of those politicians who'll make things even more beneficial for them in the long run.

The end result is that our entire world is run by the bourgeoisie. The cities are filled with their skycrapers, their banks, their factories, their shops and their houses. The proletarian's interaction with this world is limited to working and consuming. Even the democratic institutions are bourgeois democratic institutions, with bourgeois political parties discussing the problems the bourgeoisie faces. Working people only get a voice every few years, where they can choose the faces, but can't deviate from the inherent capitalist ideology behind it.
Take rights and freedoms for example. The truth is, there is no such thing as a right or a freedom. The 'rights' we see enforced are the rights which benefit the bourgeoisie, the 'rights' we see revoked are the ones that do not. In the long run, you'll find that any capitalist government is willing to relinquish all rights but one: the right to private property. This is the right which holds the bourgeoisie in power and the proletariat in servitude.

Communists consider it necessary and desirable for the proletariat to take over society and control it instead of the bourgeoisie. This effectively means taking over the means of production. These are then to be managed democratically by the workers themselves, in order to produce what the workers need. In this process the bourgeois democratic institutions and the right to private property would be abolished, to be replaced with a proletarian democracy and the collective ownership of the means of production. The end development of this proletarian democracy is communism, a world where there no longer is a ruling class, where people control their own workplace conditions, where everyone shares in the work to be done as much as they wish and in return is able to get whatever they need. Such a world would give far more freedom to the vast majority than the right to own property does right now.

[RightWinger]

I've spent the last half-an-hour or so lurking these boards; most of the members seem rather intelligent, albeit somewhat irrational at times (though what could be expected from a politically themed forums). I'm always opened-minded to rational discussion and I would like you guys to try and persuade me to adopt you apparently superior opinions.

I'm from a middle-lower class family (I think; in Australia we don't really have much of a class system) and attend a public school. I think I'm politically a georgist or a geolibertarian. The fact that one can claim ownership over land is quite absurd to me; sure you bought the land but what right did the previous owner have to sell it? Originally some one (government or individual, it doesn't really matter) just decided that a plot of land suddenly belonged to them.

Taxation I see as an unwanted and unfair imposition on someone's liberties. When someone performs a job for someone else there is an agreement between the two aforementioned parties that in exchange for a service money will be given; however the government, an unwanted external entity, intrudes upon them, demanding a cut of the payment when they really have no right to do so.

Do your best!

Why should you own land ? The land does not belong to you, it belongs to everyone !

[Demogorgon]

Taxation I see as an unwanted and unfair imposition on someone's liberties. When someone performs a job for someone else there is an agreement between the two aforementioned parties that in exchange for a service money will be given; however the government, an unwanted external entity, intrudes upon them, demanding a cut of the payment when they really have no right to do so.

I'll respond to this because it is a frequent mistake Libertarians make. Others have pointed out the less than fair nature of these contracts, so I will instead make an entirely different point. Any form of contract whether it be a contract to buy something or a contract to work for someone is dependent on a legal system to uphold it. Contracts are made according to the law and the nature of the law has a lot of impact upon the contracts. If the law requires that taxes are part of the process, that is how it is. People sign a contract knowing that doing it will require them to pay tax. In Libertarian speak nobody forces them to sign.

Of course in practice it isn't that simple, people frequently have little choice but to sign, but you have to reject Libertarianism to realise that.

Moving on, as you are a Georgist you believe that there should be no private ownership of land, that means you are halfway to understanding the problem of owning nonhuman factors of production. You need to make the leap to capital also.

[Dumb]

Please forgive me if somebody else already pointed this out. However, Georgist, I find it intriguing that you subscribe to geolibertarian views; I myself considered those views very seriously last year on my road to socialism. Personally, I think of myself as a libertarian socialist - eliminate capital, eliminate the state, hold all property in common and we'll get rid of all coercive relationships within society.

You make the point, Georgist, that land cannot justly be held in private hands; while the present owner may have purchased the land, there comes a point in which somebody decided, arbitrarily, "This is mine!" and then held on to it or sold it without any right to exclusive ownership:


The fact that one can claim ownership over land is quite absurd to me; sure you bought the land but what right did the previous owner have to sell it? Originally some one (government or individual, it doesn't really matter) just decided that a plot of land suddenly belonged to them.

I see tension, however, between that point and the following:


The owner owns the company; he created the company; the workers agree to work for his company. If the workers aren't happy with their wages they should go on strike, or otherwise all work together to create their own company for which they each own an equal share of.

Consider what it takes to start a company. You need land; you need raw materials; you need capital, machinery, etc. Are land and raw materials held in common among the people, or are they controlled by someone who "just decided that a plot of land suddenly belonged to them"? If everybody (or even most people) had equal access to the necessary resources for starting a company, you might have a point. However, such access currently does not exist; nor has it ever, nor is there any foreseeable mechanism to make it so at any point in the future.

You make an excellent point about private ownership of land. Ask yourself, though, what implications your beliefs on land ownership might have; take those beliefs to the next logical step, to their logical conclusion.

[Revolution starts with U]

You are taxed far more by your boss than the government could ever hope to do. You personally (hypothetically) produce $3 of value, are paid $1, and the government taxes you $.30.
Again, if you say that the worker voluntarily enters into contract with his boss, then he voluntarily enters into contract with his government. If you don't like your boss, move. If you don't like your government, move.
Actually, tho you may be able to find a government that suits your ethics, you will be loathe to find a plot of land unowned.
Accept capitalist social relation, or starve. That is not freedom.

[Revolution starts with U]

(There's a few paragraphs in Capital, I think vol.3 tho I could be mistaken, where Marx talks about the supposed freedom of the market, and how it guides the laborer into a completely one-sided contract. Some libertarian tried to use on the paragraphs against me because Marx talks about how progressive the market is. If someone could link that, I think it might help Georgist to understand our position. I ask you to link it, because I know some of you are far more familiar w Capital than I. :thumbup1:)