http://thedailybell.com/2873/Telegraph-Discovers-Cancerous-Debt-Levels
I find the discussion of "Land Value Tax" quite entertaining.
I have commented before that, if developed in a voluntary manner, this method of providing for certain services is preferable to me as compared to the evils of an income tax, for example.
The discussion of the idea of "owning" land (at least in the discussion with Adam on one side, and DB / Danforth on the other) as almost irrelevant - like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - if I understand the different viewpoints properly:
All seem to agree that the individual(s) occupying the space has rights of use and disposal. This would certainly include the right to enter into ONLY voluntary means of procuring (even so-called "common") services or otherwise encumbering the land. As Adam has pointed out, he does not advocate forcing a non-payer off of his property, nor does he advocate a tax (to me meaning an involuntary contract / payment) of any kind.
If this is so, I guess it doesn't matter to me if Adam says I cannot "own" land, and JD / DB say otherwise. I can use and dispose of my land. I can pass it on to my heirs or anyone else I like - for consideration or not, and without a tax consequence. No one can "force" a tax on me, or use the monopoly power of the state to kick me out. If I find value in the activities of the community, I will likely pay the "land value tax". If I do not choose to pay, the community might use persuasion to get me to pay, maybe publish my name in the paper if I don't, but names can never hurt me... .as the saying goes.
Ingo, on the other hand, has previously advocated and applauded the use of force by the state - even unto death of the "subjects" - in order that the state can preserve its interests. Therefore, in his hands, I would find this concept of "you cannot own land" both deplorable and dangerous.
Unfortunately, in both this world and any likely future world, there are more Ingos than there are Adams.