FlatIron nailed it.
This thread should be merged with one of the other LVT-polluted threads.
FlatIron nailed it.
This thread should be merged with one of the other LVT-polluted threads.
I don't see how lumping land and capital together for purposes of analysis somehow denies the use of natural resources. Over the decades, increases in per capita GDP have been due to massive increases in the productivity of labor. So we may theoretically continue this trend without utilizing any additional land. Maybe we'll just recycle and melt down the worn out capital and reshape it into something new, and with alternate forms of energy.Originally Posted by EcoWarrier
I would be more inclined to give this part of the argument a chance if I didn't know that the next part of the argument went:
"Therefore, we ought to let one particular gang of thieves anoint itself as the owner of all the land and charge us rent to use it."
I’m not a libertarian. I’m not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.
You have it all wrong. "Therefore, we ought to democratically anoint a particular gang of thieves as owners of all the land and charge us rent to use it."
It makes it so much better if 51% of us agree on who the gang of thieves are. What is the worst that could happen?
¶ 1 After many days of wandering Henry George did stub his toe upon a rock, which he took as a sign. This caused Henry George to quake and tremble with a vision.
2 And lo, out of the intense throbbing of his infernal bunion, Henry George did see the power of the landlords, and of private ownership of land rents. And he saw also the power of the taxing emperor, that his taxing and spending was sometimes sort of roughly equal to what the landlords received in land rents. And lo! A lightbulb did appear above his head.
3 Henry George called his disciples together, and said unto them, "These landowners have suckled their last sip from the collective genitals of generosity. Let us take from the landlords that which is being taken from the people, and give this to the emperor instead, that he may shower that milk and honey and other sticky and liquidy flowing stuffs from the land back upon the people."
4 And Henry George did charge his disciples to wander about as dirty ragged bands of collectively covetous vagabonds crying in the wilderness, to proclaim to all would listen (and to incessantly troll all who would not) that pure evil in private hands would become naught but pure righteousness and goodliness in the hands of a goodly collective.
Got to love Henry George. An individual person owning property is inherently flawed, but a group of people doing the same is magically superior.
That's not the next part of the argument, so you can relax (and stop lying).
Those of us who are not stupid, ignorant, greedy, evil, lying sacks of $#!+ are aware of the fact that the sun, the oceans, the earth's atmosphere, the alphabet, mathematics, etc. can never rightly be anyone's property. All who refuse to know that fact ARE in fact stupid, ignorant, greedy, evil, lying sacks of $#!+. However, as all have equal liberty rights to use those things, honest people need a way to protect themselves against evil, greedy rent seekers who will never leave off contriving ways to charge others for what nature and their cultural heritage provide for free. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Calling such a government "one particular gang of thieves" that "anoints itself as the owner of all the land and charges us rent to use it" is just filthy, despicably dishonest "meeza hatesa gubmint" $#!+. We need government to administer use of the land to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to use it, just as we need government to administer the atmosphere, the oceans, etc. to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to use them.
There is no way for anyone, or any group, or any government, or any corporation, or any church, or any other legal entity whatsoever rightly to own land. It is impossible, as it inherently removes the liberty rights of others to use the land. The only difference between owning land and owning a slave is that when you own a slave, you remove all of one person's rights. When you own land, you remove one of all persons' rights. The more of the land is owned, the fewer rights remain. In the limit, if all the land is owned by one man, all the rest are in exactly the same position as if they were also all his property. He has absolute power of life and death over them. If two people own the land, or three, or 300, or 3 million, the others are only "free" to choose which master owns them, for whose benefit they will labor rather than their own. They are not free not to be owned: their rights to liberty have been removed by force.
A good man might own land, just as a good man might own slaves. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, as did most of America's other Founding Fathers. But the fact that a good man might own land does not justify landowning any more than a good man owning slaves justifies slave owning. And landowning is inherently an instrument of theft, oppression and murder that serves the greedy and evil no matter who else participates in it, just as slave owning is. Landowning is like the One Ring of Sauron: it is evil in its inherent, fundamental nature, and so ultimately it can serve only evil.
Last edited by Roy L; 07-29-2012 at 08:59 PM.
I am perfectly fine with property rights. If you dont think peoperty can be owned then don't own it.
Why even bother telling such stupid, evil lies, like a stupid, evil, lying sack of $#!+?
A trustee does not own the trust assets, and does not keep the rent of said assets for his own purposes even though he may, on behalf of the trust beneficiaries, charge rent of those who use the assets. Likewise, officials of a responsible, democratic government do not keep tax revenue for their own purposes. They likewise would not keep the publicly created land rent recovered by land value taxation for their own purposes. They administer such funds for public purposes and benefit, according to systems of democratic accountability, or they lose their jobs. To claim otherwise is just a stupid, evil lie. Private landowners, by contrast, DO KEEP publicly created land rents for their own purposes, with no public accountability for what they take from the public by force.
That is nothing but stupid, dishonest, "meeza hatesa gubmint" filth.It makes it so much better if 51% of us agree on who the gang of thieves are.
Yes, some people are indeed stupid and dishonest enough to vote for a gang of thieves to implement and maintain a system of systematic, institutionalized thievery. You are very likely one of them. I am not.
I don't know, but one of the better things that could happen is that you could somehow find a willingness to know facts, and consequently want nothing more than to kneel in a cesspool and slit your belly open to atone for the monumental evil you have so dishonestly tried to rationalize, justify, defend, excuse and serve.What is the worst that could happen?
If'n such an imagined right existed. Until then, you mangy little LVT kids can get off my lawn, afore I fill your scraggly little butts with rock salt.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote