Did the Creator bestow inalienable rights on anarchists?

I understand the difference, and I asked the question that I wanted people to consider. Your question would only be understood by a very few people. My question leads to the heart of the issue that raises your question.

Are all men created equal?

Do all have equal rights?

Well then, that includes equal right to the use of nature -- which no man created. (Notice: "equal," not "collective"!)

George -- just like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, and the French Physiocrats -- made a distinction between usufruct ownership -- the freedom to live securely on one's land, use it and enjoy it -- and absolute ownership in which the land is a private asset, to be sold or rented for gain.

When most people refer to the sanctity of private property, they are saying they don't want the government or somebody else to be able to invade their privacy, take away their property, or boss them around about how to use it. All of this is fine -- that's usufruct.

The one thing usufruct does not include is the "right" to use land as a way to earn money for nothing.

Herbert Spencer observed that once one grants an absolute right to ownership of land as private money-making asset, then one man could own the entire earth and charge everyone else rent for the right to live on it.

George saw the evil in absolute private property in land and wanted to return land to the usufruct basis. The mechanism was a "tax" (strictly speaking, it's a user fee based on assessed market value) falling exclusively upon land, taxing away the rent -- the unearned gain which exists not due to any effort by the owner but due to the growth of the surrounding community, and the increasing demand for space to live and work.

* Note: this is different from the conventional property tax which actually, in most cases, hits real capital (buildings) much more heavily than land. However, the land value tax could be achieved by a simple shift in the property tax.

This local land tax would fund government, from the bottom up. (Note how this meshes with the original tax provisions in the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Articles of Confederation!)

Any revenue above that which the community deems necessary can be distributed as a citizens dividend, much like Alaska's oil dividend. This is not welfare, it is the collection and distribution of privilege.

In a Georgist system all other taxes would be abolished, since they are taxes on actual private property and productive activity.

Milton Friedman has said Henry George's land tax would be the "least bad" tax. In the opinion of many Georgists, it would actually be good. For one thing, land tax discourages speculation and actually frees up the land market, which because of speculation is currently not very free at all.

The Ultimate Tax Reform (short essay)

The Ultimate Tax Reform (different -- in-depth policy study)

Very important: Land tax, being by its nature local (except for state and federal land, fishing rights, radio spectrum and certain other state- and federally granted privileges), also lends itself to a return of power to local government.

George wrote:

...[W]e ought with the more tenacity to hold, wherever possible, to the principle of local self-government — the principle that, in things which concern only themselves, the people of each political sub-division — township, ward, city or State, as may be — shall act for themselves. We have neglected this principle within our States even more than in the relations between the State and National Governments, and in attempting to govern great cities by State commissions, and in making what properly belongs to County Supervisors and Township Trustees the business of legislatures, we have divided responsibility and promoted corruption.

One could even envision this principle working in an anarchist society. It really all depends on where and how it is implemented.

- dave
Henry George School/Chicago

HOGWASH! Place the blame where it belongs instead of this Constitutional "scape-goatism" that seems to be prevalent at times on the DP. The Constitution allows nothing nor prevents anything and the Founders were well aware of that fact and warned us numerous times to be eternally vigilant in guarding our own Liberty. The Constitution is nothing more than a blueprint to provide the People with the tools necessary, if they will use them, to protect themselves against those who would usurp the limited authority delegated to government. The People have not only failed, but have neglected the knowledge necessary to secure their own rights and to resist, with the utmost fervor, any and all attempts by government to breach the contract that was to bind it solely by the consent of the People.

It was not the Constitutional Republic that was a failure, but those who allowed it to fail. Their was a Putsch in 1861 which brought about a consolidation of the Republic of Republics into a centralized-nationalized government, from there the Constitutional Republic was toast.

As Franklin warned: "We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it"
The Founders never had an illusion that the Constitution would or could restrain government. Read their quotes about the subject, like the quote of Adams below, it was left to the People to restrain government, by force if necessary. The Constitution was simply the framework provided to assist the People in that endeavor. You blame the Constitution, I place blame where it belongs.....on the People of subsequent generations who lost both the sight over their own government and the desire to educate themselves in such matters.

There are attempts to either place blame on the Constitution or the Constitutional Republic it founded, the fault is within ourselves as a People, not the document or the form of government that was created to assist us to protect ourselves. .

"A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious, and frugal." Adams

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers." Adams

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Jefferson

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." Jefferson
"On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?" Jefferson

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Madison

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." Madison

"No compact among men... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." Washington
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

And if you didn't like it, then you could choose from any number of competing "justice courts", because there's no "monopoly" on the courts. But, there are "rules" and the rules are made up as you go along.
So, she could pick the court that will rule in her favor, and you can pick the court that will rule in your favor.
Isn't that cool?
Then, since neither you nor the courts are going to agree, then you'll each have to get your own "private security forces" to enforce what your decision was on the other party. Then you can have a little "private security war" between your 2 competing "security forces", and everything will be so cool that way.

And when one side wins, they can "coerce" you to do as they say according to how they decided, whether you agree to it or not. Because they won, and thus their decision stands. And you have to knuckle whether you like it or not.
Unless you can pay for a really bigger security force to start up the war again.

See how all this anarchy works?
It's the coolest.