Page 15 of 68 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 450 of 2026

Thread: What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

  1. #421
    Quote Originally Posted by smokemonsc View Post
    I do understand your point - you think because not all land plots and 100% identical it somehow changes the definition of a monopoly - which it does not! Again monopoly means one user has 100% ownership of an entire supply. It does not matter if each unit of that supply is identical or not.
    No unit of anything is identical to any other. No bit of matter in the universe is identical to any other bit of matter. "That electron has different sun exposure than that one. I thus have an electron monopoly!"



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #422
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Property is, initially, established by claiming things that no one else has already claimed.
    No, that's called "grabbing." Claiming something obtains no more right to deprive others of it than claiming one is the king makes one the king. You cannot extinguish others' rights by your bald say-so, sorry.
    No one was claiming it before, so you're not violating anyone's rights,
    That's just obviously false. No one ever claimed the earth's atmosphere. Do you really think you can make it your property by claiming it is yours? Do you think trying to implement such a claim would not violate anyone's rights? Don't be absurd:

    A man dying of thirst stumbles into an oasis fed by a natural spring. He stoops to drink from the pool nature provided when he hears a revolver being cocked behind his ear, and a quiet, menacing, sibilant voice intones, "Uh-uh. I know what you're thinkin'. 'Will he charge me six years' labor for a sip of water, or only five?' Well to tell the truth, in all this excitement, I haven't quite totaled up the rent myself. But bein' as it's 44 miles to the next water hole, which might as well be the other side of the world, and I'd as soon kick your sorry butt CLEAN OFF my land, you've got to ask yourself one question. 'Do I feel thirsty today?' Well, do ya, slave?"

    You really claim Dirtowner Harry isn't violating the dying man's rights?? REALLY??

    Such claims are just despicably dishonest.
    you're not aggressing against anyone, by appropriating for yourself.
    Bull$#!+. You are declaring your intention forcibly to violate, by initiating violent, coercive, physical aggression, the rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it:

    Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

    A thief, right?

    Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

    But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has "claimed" the pass and has a land title to it. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his "business" really changed? It's all legitimate now, people even look up to him as a successful entrepreneur. But he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

    And come to that, how is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

    There are limits to how much you can claim,
    You can claim all you want. You just don't obtain any valid property right thereby.
    the whole "mixing your labor" in thing
    Which is a physical impossibility, and nothing but an uninformative metaphor.
    probably would help to solidify your claim,
    Keeping it just as invalid.
    also marking the borders if the matter is fairly immobile,
    More garbage. No amount of cargo-cult ritual will alter the fact that you purpose to violate others' rights.
    or moving the matter into a place you already possess if it's transportable.
    If you move it at all, you have removed the opportunity nature provided. But locations on the earth's surface cannot be moved.
    That's what property is: stuff people claim.
    Nope. That's just loot.
    And then, stuff people buy or get given from those who originally claimed it.
    Have no more right to it than the fool who buys the Brooklyn Bridge from a con man.
    mises.org? Isn't that the same outfit that hosts Rothbard's stupid, ignorant, and blindingly dishonest anti-Georgist filth?

    ROTFL! Isn't it remarkable how quickly you abandon even the pretense of respecting productive contribution? Your "arguments" are nothing but transparent rationalizations for grabbing, greed, parasitism and theft.

    Remarkable -- but not unexpected.

  4. #423
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    No unit of anything is identical to any other. No bit of matter in the universe is identical to any other bit of matter. "That electron has different sun exposure than that one. I thus have an electron monopoly!"
    More of your rationalizations for landowner greed and parasitism. The difference is that like electrons, products are typically INDISTINGUISHABLE and INTERCHANGEABLE (yes, there are exceptions like original artworks). Land parcels are not.

  5. #424
    Most of your rationalizations for taxing people's livelihood/homes are based on collectivism and pathetic lesser animal instincts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    More of your rationalizations for landowner greed and parasitism. The difference is that like electrons, products are typically INDISTINGUISHABLE and INTERCHANGEABLE (yes, there are exceptions like original artworks). Land parcels are not.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #425
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    Most of your rationalizations for taxing people's livelihood/homes are based on collectivism and pathetic lesser animal instincts.
    Most of the georgist I've debated with have vehmently denied that the idea of private property and the desire of individuals to own and control their own land stems from our animal instincts regarding territory.

    They think somehow that humans are devoid of this territorial instinct, when actually it forms the basis of our property rights.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  8. #426
    Quote Originally Posted by smokemonsc View Post
    You clearly don't understand the terms you are using.
    No, you don't.
    How can I have a discussion with you when you don't know the meaning of the word monopoly? Must I say it again?
    You are incorrect in your view of what constitutes a monopoly. Land is a CANONICAL EXAMPLE of monopoly in classical economics. You are merely unaware of that fact because you do not know any economics.
    A monopoly is when someone has 100% ownership of the entire supply of something.
    Like a land parcel or original artwork.
    I don't know how much more clear I can make it. The differences between land lots are irrelevant because the cost of one lot directly affects the cost of another - because they are of the same supply.
    No, they are not. They are two different things, like two different artworks. Their prices may or may not affect prices of other similar things, to the extent that they function as substitutes. But all goods in monopoly supply have substitutes to varying degrees. The price of oil will affect the price of natural gas.
    You continue to use a bad understanding of what a real monopoly is to justify an economic view that is equally wrong.
    My economic view is objectively correct and indisputable, but the term, "monopoly" is not even necessary to an understanding of the facts. Just think of land monopolization as a legal entitlement to exclude others from the land.
    You seem to think nobody ever sells land,
    I have said no such thing. It is simply a fabrication on your part.
    which is just about the dumbest thing said on these forums.
    <sigh> Do people sell original artworks? Does that make them somehow less monopolistic goods? Does it alter the fixity of their supply?
    I'm not going to continue this discussion until you start using the correct definitions of economic terms.
    Please educate yourself:

    "The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
    The rest of your post is just retarded.
    You have been demolished, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

  9. #427
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    Most of the georgist I've debated with have vehmently denied that the idea of private property and the desire of individuals to own and control their own land stems from our animal instincts regarding territory.
    Human beings, like chimpanzees, gorillas, and most other primates, are social, and have no instinct for individual territories. The orangutan is solitary, and does exhibit a weak territorial instinct.
    They think somehow that humans are devoid of this territorial instinct, when actually it forms the basis of our property rights.
    Garbage. For 99% of the human species' history, there was no such thing as private landowning. Land was always held communally or tribally. The basis of property rights is the producer's right to own the fruits of his labor.

  10. #428
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    Most of your rationalizations for taxing people's livelihood/homes
    I propose to abolish taxation of people's livelihoods (to the extent that they are obtained by commensurate productive contribution, and not government-issued and -enforced privilege) and homes.
    are based on collectivism and pathetic lesser animal instincts.
    That is a silly fabrication.

  11. #429
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    A man dying of thirst stumbles into an oasis fed by a natural spring. He stoops to drink from the pool nature provided when he hears a revolver being cocked behind his ear, and a quiet, menacing, sibilant voice intones, "Uh-uh. I know what you're thinkin'. 'Will he charge me six years' labor for a sip of water, or only five?' Well to tell the truth, in all this excitement, I haven't quite totaled up the rent myself. But bein' as it's 44 miles to the next water hole, which might as well be the other side of the world, and I'd as soon kick your sorry butt CLEAN OFF my land, you've got to ask yourself one question. 'Do I feel thirsty today?' Well, do ya, slave?"

    You really claim Dirtowner Harry isn't violating the dying man's rights?? REALLY??
    I would totally love to live in a place where Harry were free to kick people off his land to his heart's content. That is called "freedom of association". Rand Paul got in trouble with Maddow for advocating it, but he was right on the money. Freedom of association totally rocks!

  12. #430
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    "The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
    Because Adam Smith, of course, is economics. Smith was a total genius. We should agree with everything he ever said.

    If I ever have some water, I'm going to hunt down Adam Smith and sell it to him for you-(should)-know-what. Oh yeah, Smith was a genius.

  13. #431
    my land is mine. i shouldnt have to pay for it

  14. #432



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #433
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I would totally love to live in a place where Harry were free to kick people off his land to his heart's content. That is called "freedom of association".
    No, that claim is absurd. Forcibly depriving people of access to the natural resources they need to live is called "murder." And you are rationalizing and justifying it. That is called, "evil."
    Rand Paul got in trouble with Maddow for advocating it, but he was right on the money. Freedom of association totally rocks!
    Will you listen to yourself? Condemning an innocent human being to agonizing death by dehydration because he declines to be your slave is now, "freedom of association"!

    I very strongly suggest that you watch, "Judgment at Nuremberg," and try to figure out what lesson it might hold for you. For other readers:

    "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

  17. #434
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    mises.org? Isn't that the same outfit that hosts Rothbard's stupid, ignorant, and blindingly dishonest anti-Georgist filth?
    Probably! Mises hosts everything; it's probably the largest and one of the most popular economics web site in the world.

    I love Rothbard! He's my favorite. You know, I've read tons of Rothbard articles and books, and yet I don't think I've ever read a single word from him on Georgism. Guess that kind of tells you something about how significant Georgism is/was, both to Murray Rothbard and to the world generally.

    LewRockwell.com -- Traffic Rank in US: 1,464. Sites Linking In: 8,859
    Georgist.com -- Traffic Rank: No Data Found. Sites Linking In: 7

    I could find no larger Georgist website. Georgism is on the downswing; in the doldrums; experiencing a permanent slump. Nobody likes it: that proves it's wrong!!

    (Kidding!)

  18. #435
    Quote Originally Posted by smokemonsc View Post
    No supply of land is not fixed
    This is not debatable. Land is fixed. Scientific fact.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  19. #436
    Land is fixed. Scientific fact.


    more land being created all the time. some just rose out of the sea not too long ago look it up

  20. #437
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Forcibly depriving people of access to the natural resources they need to live is called "murder."
    Roy, why add the "natural" part? How bit this chewy morsel: I've got an expensive medical machine. Guy comes and wants me to use it on him. Says if I don't, he'll die. I say he's gotta pay the million dollar fee, after all, the stupid thing cost me a billion. Did I just murder him? Violate his rights?

    Better yet: I've got a second kidney, but I keep it instead of giving it away. I've got a skill called heart-surgery, but I mostly only will use it for those who will pay (or maybe I even retire and thus let everybody die!). I've got a thousand gold coins, but I won't use them to pay for food for starving people in Africa. All these acts grossly violate of the rights of someone/anyone/everyone?

    There's six to eight billion thirsty people who all want to drink that oasis, Roy. Somebody's got to keep them all out. Somebody's got to ration everything. It's either the market or command-and-control. I choose the market.

    My solution is better.
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 09-23-2011 at 10:28 PM.

  21. #438
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Property is, initially, established by claiming things that no one else has already claimed.
    Sorry but I prefer Thomas Paine's definition: "It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property"



    No one was claiming it before, so you're not violating anyone's rights, you're not aggressing against anyone, by appropriating for yourself. There are limits to how much you can claim, the whole "mixing your labor" in thing probably would help to solidify your claim, also marking the borders if the matter is fairly immobile, or moving the matter into a place you already possess if it's transportable.
    How much labor is required to be mixed in to claim the land as your property? So I can't just purchase the deed to 100 acres and leave it alone? It is 'mine' after all...

    That's what property is: stuff people claim. And then, stuff people buy or get given from those who originally claimed it.

    http://mises.org/media/1147/How-We-Become-Owners
    And people used to claim slaves. Just because because the injustice is less obvious to you doesn't mean it isn't there.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  22. #439
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Sorry but I prefer Thomas Paine's definition: "It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property"
    Yes, but I don't. Since you offer no particular reason that your definition is superior, I shall continue with mine.

    How much labor is required to be mixed in to claim the land as your property?
    At least as much as required to make it clearly recognizable to others that you're claiming it. For instance, to claim a rock, you could put it into your pocket. That would make it pretty clear that it's yours, as the convention is well-established that "things in someone's pocket are not up-for-grabs". To claim a radio frequency, you could begin broadcasting on it. If you wanted to claim it for purposes of keeping it clear of transmission, perhaps for some scientific reason, your job of claiming it might be more involved or costly. Conventions arise. Order out of chaos. People respect the conventions and the claims of others, because they want their property to be likewise respected.

    And people used to claim slaves. Just because because the injustice is less obvious to you doesn't mean it isn't there.
    Yet you want to continue the injustice forever by having the government enable the monopolization of land. "Just pay a little fee, sir, for the privilege of ENSLAVING HUMANITY!! There we go, all paid up, here's your receipt and have a nice day."

  23. #440
    Quote Originally Posted by smokemonsc View Post
    I do understand your point - you think because not all land plots and 100% identical it somehow changes the definition of a monopoly - which it does not! Again monopoly means one user has 100% ownership of an entire supply.
    Then I will humor you and call it an oligopoly. Same problem. Look at the previous statistics.


    It does not matter if each unit of that supply is identical or not. Where talking apples and oranges here. This thread has been about land in the general sense, the entire land of the country. I've proven that land ownership in this country is not a monopoly as MILLIONS of land owners exist. Not 1, not 100, but MILLIONS.
    What percent of the land do these MILLIONS own? Also curious what percent of that land 'owned' by those millions are actually owned by banks.


    I've also proven that land is not constant - its total supply changes every year.
    That is false. Land is fixed. No self-respecting economist would dispute otherwise.




    I used Dubai as an example of man made land, as well as my new example of Volcanoes. The islands of Hawaii grow by several 1,000 sq ft a year alone.
    When we talk about land we are talking about space. So no, volcanoes do not create 'more land', its only the surface that has changed. Dubai is not an example, you are talking about improvements on land.

    Even if one person owned all of the land in the world. They would have to resort to one of two things to maintain it. They would have to provide some good or service in order to trade for their own needs, or employ guards to defend it - which would then have to be paid by some good or service. In the end - monopolizing the entire world's land is impossible. I don't think we need to do anything about it, and I don't think it's a problem.
    Did you read the article or no?
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #441
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Then I will humor you and call it an oligopoly. Same problem. Look at the previous statistics.




    What percent of the land do these MILLIONS own? Also curious what percent of that land 'owned' by those millions are actually owned by banks.




    That is false. Land is fixed. No self-respecting economist would dispute otherwise.






    When we talk about land we are talking about space. So no, volcanoes do not create 'more land', its only the surface that has changed. Dubai is not an example, you are talking about improvements on land.



    Did you read the article or no?
    I find no purpose in continuing this discussion as you are not being intellectually honest. You refuse to acknowledge that land increases due to natural and man made reasons. You equate surface area of the Earth to "Land" which I do not - and 'any self respecting economist' understands that land equals dirt, dry mass, usable surfaces upon which to build. Oceanic area does not constitute the economic term 'land' and you know it.

    Good for you in acknowledging that land ownership is not a monopoly. Maybe soon you'll realize next that your next preposterous claim that no one ever sells land (especially good land) is also 100% - false.

    Google - "Manhattan Real Estate for Sale". According to you - no one sells top quality land. I'd consider Manhattan top quality.

  26. #442
    Quote Originally Posted by satchelmcqueen View Post
    my land is mine.
    Question begging fallacy.

  27. #443
    Quote Originally Posted by steve005 View Post
    more land being created all the time. some just rose out of the sea not too long ago look it up
    Learn what "fixed supply" means in economics.

  28. #444
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    mises.org? Isn't that the same outfit that hosts Rothbard's stupid, ignorant, and blindingly dishonest anti-Georgist filth?
    Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I can't really trust something that was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation

    http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20332.aspx
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  29. #445
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Roy, why add the "natural" part?
    Because it identifies the fact that the thirsty man would otherwise have been at liberty to drink. That is the stubborn, irreducible fact that you will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing.
    How bit this chewy morsel: I've got an expensive medical machine. Guy comes and wants me to use it on him. Says if I don't, he'll die. I say he's gotta pay the million dollar fee, after all, the stupid thing cost me a billion. Did I just murder him? Violate his rights?
    Nope. He would not otherwise have had access to the machine. You may be a jerk, but you are not a murderer. When you claim that Dirtowner Harry can rightfully use force to deprive the thirsty man of water he would otherwise be at liberty to drink, you are advocating flat-out f*cking murder, full stop. That is just EVIL.
    Better yet: I've got a second kidney, but I keep it instead of giving it away. I've got a skill called heart-surgery, but I mostly only will use it for those who will pay (or maybe I even retire and thus let everybody die!).
    Dirtowner Harry isn't "letting" the thirsty man die. He is forcibly MURDERING HIM. And you know it. You are claiming the privileged have a right to MURDER INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS. That is EVIL.
    I've got a thousand gold coins, but I won't use them to pay for food for starving people in Africa. All these acts grossly violate of the rights of someone/anyone/everyone?
    No, as I have already proved.
    There's six to eight billion thirsty people who all want to drink that oasis, Roy.
    No, there aren't. You are lying.
    Somebody's got to keep them all out.
    No, no one has to keep anyone out. You are lying. People have lived for many thousands of years with no one keeping others out of the water sources.
    Somebody's got to ration everything.
    No, that's just a lie you are telling because you want the power to ration other people's liberty.
    It's either the market or command-and-control. I choose the market.
    No, I choose the market. You choose command and control by privileged, greedy parasites.
    My solution is better.
    No, your "solution" is in fact the problem.

  30. #446
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Probably! Mises hosts everything; it's probably the largest and one of the most popular economics web site in the world.
    And one of the least honest.
    I love Rothbard! He's my favorite.
    Funny, he doesn't strike me as being quite irrational, dishonest and evil enough for you on any issue but land rent recovery. Are you sure you don't prefer the sub-humanly evil, irrational and dishonest Hans-Hermann Hoppe?
    You know, I've read tons of Rothbard articles and books, and yet I don't think I've ever read a single word from him on Georgism. Guess that kind of tells you something about how significant Georgism is/was, both to Murray Rothbard and to the world generally.
    No, it only tells you something about what you choose to read.

  31. #447
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Since you offer no particular reason that your definition is superior, I shall continue with mine.
    The reason Paine's is superior is obvious: it does not imply the existence of a privileged landowning class and oppressed landless class.
    At least as much as required to make it clearly recognizable to others that you're claiming it.
    Can't be done. It is physically impossible to mix labor with land.
    For instance, to claim a rock, you could put it into your pocket.
    IOW, you would have to remove it from nature.
    That would make it pretty clear that it's yours, as the convention is well-established that "things in someone's pocket are not up-for-grabs".
    All things in pockets have been removed from nature -- except baby marsupials, of course.
    To claim a radio frequency, you could begin broadcasting on it.
    How could that extinguish anyone else's right to do likewise?
    If you wanted to claim it for purposes of keeping it clear of transmission, perhaps for some scientific reason, your job of claiming it might be more involved or costly. Conventions arise. Order out of chaos. People respect the conventions and the claims of others, because they want their property to be likewise respected.
    Especially if they see a way to use their claims to steal from the productive and get away with it.
    Yet you want to continue the injustice forever by having the government enable the monopolization of land.
    Once fixed improvements are a significant element in the economy, land is going to be monopolized in any case. Government, whose job it is to administer possession and use of land, can reverse the injustice that would otherwise be inherent in its monopolization by recovering the publicly created rent of land for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates it. We know payment of just compensation reverses an injustice, so it is YOU who want to continue the injustice forever.
    "Just pay a little fee, sir, for the privilege of ENSLAVING HUMANITY!!
    Nope. You're lying again. People can't be enslaved if their rights are secure and they have access to opportunity. Land rent recovery secures and reconciles the equal rights of all to access and use what nature provided for all, and the universal individual exemption thereto restores the equal individual right to liberty, ensuring that everyone has access to opportunity.

  32. #448
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Because Adam Smith, of course, is economics. Smith was a total genius. We should agree with everything he ever said.
    I have provided the proof that landowning is a monopoly. You have been destroyed, you know it, and you have no answers. As usual.
    If I ever have some water, I'm going to hunt down Adam Smith and sell it to him for you-(should)-know-what. Oh yeah, Smith was a genius.
    Were you under a mistaken impression that you were contributing something of interest?



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #449
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I can't really trust something that was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation

    http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20332.aspx
    Someone, you mean. Mises Institute has probably never received any money from the Rockefeller Foundation.

  35. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    LOL! We have a low-level world-view incompatibility. You're BIOS, I'm EFI. They're just not going to fit together.
    Indeed. I have respect for fact and logic and total commitment to liberty, justice and truth, while you eagerly sacrifice even the integrity of your mind to preserve your false and evil beliefs.
    Government is a gang of bandits. Government is nothing but a group of parasites.
    Yes, I guess that explains why Switzerland is such a poverty-stricken hell-hole of tyranny, violence, piracy, disease, famine and chaos, while Somalia is peaceful, prosperous and free...
    If I have a right to control my body, and Dennis Rodman has a right to control my body, then one of those rights simply does not exist.
    And probably on your planet, that is relevant to the issue.
    What is a "right" anyway? A right is a boundary.
    No, a right is a societal undertaking to constrain its members' actions with respect to one another.
    A right is a boundary, delineating a property.
    No, the ludicrous and evil attempt to define all rights as property rights is a transparent attempt to make everyone's rights a function of the amount of property they own.
    Two people cannot both own 100% of the same property. Of course, you would differ with me there, because you think each person in the whole horde of humanity has a property in the whole blessed universe!
    No, you are lying again. I have stated explicitly that only products of labor can rightly be owned.
    Which is... let us be gentle and say: unworkable!
    Which might be why you made it up.
    Your solution is to hold the universe in common intellectually, but as a practical matter to legalize stealing and let landowners steal all that common property.
    Another blatant lie from you. It is YOU who seek to rationalize, justify and enable landowner theft and parasitism.
    My solution is to let everyone divvy it all up.
    Which they have conveniently already done, by force, and you like the results.
    My solution is better.
    If you like poverty, oppression and injustice.

Page 15 of 68 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Mike Lee: Public Land vs. Government Land
    By TaftFan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 06-29-2017, 04:54 PM
  2. Bernie Sanders- This Land is Your Land
    By Origanalist in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-29-2016, 09:16 PM
  3. BLM Anthem? "This Land Is Their Land"
    By Occam's Banana in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-15-2014, 10:46 AM
  4. Land yacht? Try Land Ocean Liner!
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2010, 05:32 PM
  5. A Man and his Land.
    By TomtheTinker in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 02:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •