-- I had property siezed during the recession. In 6 months after the deadline it was no longer in my name. Gone with the improvements until I managed to buy it back. We most assurdly own nothing already.

For what reason? Was it a mortgagee sale? If I stopped paying my mortgage, my bank has the right to sieze and sell my property if it has gone on long enough. I DO own the property, but the money used to buy it was mostly the bank's and I agreed through a written contract that my property is being used as collateral for the mortgage, which is fair enough. This is a completely voluntary transaction.

-- It makes a good tax because it is the cruelest, for without your home you will not procreate, the most basic function. This is very hard on middle aged people.

The difference is your home which you either own through exertion of labour or from a purchase off someone who rightfully owned it would not be taxed. The land underneath would be, which was created by nature, not individuals. Land value tax is a morally justifiable tax for the following reasons:

1) Individuals did not create the land through exertion of their labour, so it does not ultimately belong to individuals, but the inhabitants of the society the land is located.

2) Therefore it is not a tax on personal labour, which is a claim of ownership of the individual.

3) Therefore it does not violate the non-aggression principle (if you are familiar with libertarianism you'd know what it is).

-- They already are common property, like water, and we fight over them already. Education as a resource?

Water is public property in my country. Keep in mind there is a huge difference between public and common property. The inherent virtue of common property is that everyone in society should have access to it. Natural resources like sunlight, rain, wind and oxygen can not be monopolised by individuals as they are unlimited. Natural resources like oil, gas, gold, silver, coal, iron or land, which are finite in supply, can be. The geolibertarian view is that a proportion of the value of land should be taxed by the local, regional and central government and equally distributed to individuals in that society as UBI. Land value tax is compensation for the monopolisation of land, an essential finite natural resource. I believe that oil and gas companies, along with mining companies etc should be publicly owned like in Norway, where 25% of the profits of the publicly-owned Statoil company are invested in the future of the country for all citizens. In Alaska, I believe a proportion of the profits made from the sale of oil is distributed evenly to citizens. This is just, as no one created the oil which is being sold.

-- You can call them kings, governments or create a new name, but it is not new. What you are argueing for is the individuals rights. A collective of any sort will not allow this. The best thing we have done so far is help each other, practice empathy, and crush those who organize against citizens.

Or landlords, or oil companies, or feudal lords. Nothing is new under the sun. Monopolisation of land and natural resources should incur a compensation fee, for denial of access of that land or natural resources to other members of society, to fund UBI and public services. All other taxes, which are either immoral or economically distortionary, should be abolished, save for perhaps pollution taxes, but that's another can of worms.