We Urgently Need To Revert To Classical Economics

[Roy L]

I know I feel the same way. I look at you with complete disgust.

Then you're not even close to what I feel. Try adding contempt, pity, horror, frustration, loathing, incredulity, and revulsion.

In 1984, George Orwell created a famously horrific image of a totalitarian future that would be like, "a boot stamping on a human face, forever." When I read fallacious, absurd and dishonest anti-LVT lies (and yours are no different from any others in that respect), I see the boot stamping on the human face, forever -- and the face eagerly kissing and licking the boot in grateful worship, as it stamps down again and again and again.

Yes that is exactly what I advocate.

Right. You advocate injustice, I advocate justice.

I want reparations instead of penalties. If a man takes something away, I want that returned.

Except if he takes away others' liberty to use land.

Now as far as rewards go I will not even entertain the idea that justice is rewards commensurate with contributions.

But in fact, you know that that is what it is.

The value put to rewards and the contributions are completely subjective.

Nonsense. Value is what a thing would trade for in the market, which by definition can't be subjective as it requires two different agents' inputs.

As such it can not be used to objectively define justice.

Yes, it can, as proved above.

Yes I would be ok with someone homesteading the sun and the air.

That's an obvious lie.

I don't see how it is possible with our technology at the present.

That's not the point, and you know it.

So I would not accept any rents until it is possible.

So if someone invented a giant machine that compressed atmospheric air, and ran his machine until people became short of breath and had to pay him rent for air to breathe in order to keep from suffocating, you would accept that and just pay the rent?

You are lying, and you know it.

Human organs and bodies are the property of their owners.

Propertarian nonsense. They can't be sold.

Only the owners of their property can give it away.

If you can't sell it, you don't own it.

And absolutely property rights should exist for them. That means you can not murder me or tax me.

Absurd non sequitur.

You not at liberty to use it until someone puts their labor into it.

ROTFL!!! No, that's just another flat-out stupid lie from you, not to mention a blatant self-contradiction:

How did the first person to use it put their labor into it if they were not at liberty to do so, hmmmmmm?

You are destroyed. What you don't seem to understand is that ALL your garbage is as stupid, irrational and dishonest as your brain-dead claim above.

It is just for the land to go to the person who put work into it instead of the latecomer.

No, that's just a false, absurd and dishonest claim not supported by any facts or logic. If it were true, Crusoe would be within his rights to point his musket in Friday's face and give him a choice between permanent servitude and getting back in the water. But he self-evidently and indisputably is not.

Ideas and words are not scarce that is the reason they are not property.

??? They often ARE property under patent and copyright laws. Like land, they have been made into property by law. That is the point.

I do not support intellectual property.

Ignoratio elenchi. Making ideas and words into property MAKES them scarce. That is why they are made into property.

What are your premises?

Equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor.

List them and I will show you how I am right.

No, of course you won't. Don't be stupid.

Instead of hiding and making me guess at them.

I haven't hidden them or made you guess. I have stated them frequently, including in this thread. But in post #126, you wrote:

"Everything comes from the land. So again that would negate property rights if we allow your premises to stand."

You are the one who claims my premises negate property rights. So you need to identify the specific premises you are talking about, and show how they negate property rights. (Hint: "Everything comes from the land," being obviously false, is not one of my premises.)

I'm waiting. But I'm not holding my breath.

So is the land that had a fence put on it, that a had a hole dug in it, that had a seed planted in it, that was fertilized, that had a house put on it.

Blatantly false. The fence does not alter the natural land underneath it or around it, and the same is true of the hole, the seed, the house, and any other product of labor that happens to be produced or located on the land but is not and cannot itself be land.

HOW COULD PUTTING A PRODUCT OF LABOR ON LAND THAT NATURE PUT THERE MAKE THAT LAND A PRODUCT OF LABOR?

All of that land had labor mixed into it.

False. It is physically impossible to "mix labor into" land. That is nothing but a misleading metaphor. A fence is a product of labor, not land, and it is sitting on top of the land, not "mixed into" the land. Likewise the house, seed, hole, etc.

All of that land is property.

Nope. Conclusively refuted above. Producing a product gives you ownership of the product, not the location where you made it or put it.

All of that land can be considered a good that had labor mixed into it.

Wrong again. That is literally nonsense. Land, by definition, HASN'T had labor "mixed into" it. It is what nature provided.

Bread has nothing to do with your claim that society produces goods that people use.

It most certainly does. You can't expect to take bread from someone else without paying for it, and you likewise can't expect to take the economic advantage society produces at a given location from everyone else without paying for it.

Society gets a benefit from every single individual in it.

Wrong. The comatose, the criminal, etc. give society no benefit.

But they still have rights.

It is a subjective benefit and as such it can not be taxes.

It's subjective in the true sense: it's imaginary, exists only in your own mind, and is nothing but some $#!+ you made up.

My participation in society as a peaceful individual brings peace to society as much as they bring peace to me.

Clearly false. You don't face down armed criminals. Society pays someone to do that for you.

As such those goods are equal.

Refuted above.

A bread seller gives me as much benefit as my money gives him.

So you do agree you can't expect to take his bread and not pay for it? Then why do you think you can take someone else's liberty and not pay for it?

Everything is a equal subjective trade.

The landowner's removal of others' liberty to use the land is not an equal trade. He just takes away their rights to liberty and gives them nothing in return.

As such you can not levy a tax on that.

I don't propose to tax trades. Landowning is not a trade.

Even if trades were not equal but they must according to basic logic they are still just since they are done voluntarily.

When did I voluntarily give up my right to use the land others claim they own?

I am going to abandon the argument from practical stand point because of two reasons. It is too easy to win and second this type of argument can only be won from a moral stand point.

Right: it is too easy for ME to win, and I have already won it from a moral standpoint.

No one taken this liberty from you, you never had it in the first place.

That is a lie. You could with equal "logic" claim a child of slaves has not had his liberty taken from him because he "never had it in the first place."

You have liberty to take unused land.

That's not true (I am forbidden to "take" or use unused but owned land), and it's not liberty anyway. Our ancestors for millions of years were at liberty to use land whether or not others had used or were using it. THAT is liberty. "Taking" land is a blatant violation of others' liberty rights to use it.

Stop being a parasite, trying to take something for nothing.

Stop telling such stupid, despicable lies. I have not tried to take anything for nothing, other than my human rights, which I am supposed to get just for being alive. But my right to liberty has been taken from me by landowners. It is the landowner who takes something for nothing, living as a parasite, as already proved in post #6 in this thread. It is the parasitic landowner who gets something for nothing by charging others full market value for what government, the community and nature provide:

"The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent." — Thomas Carlyle

"The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive way for a capitalist to increase his fortune, is to put all monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price" — Andrew Carnegie

"Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economising. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not the individual who might hold title." — John Stuart Mill

Etc.

Stop lying.

[Roy L]

wrong

It is fact. Ownership includes four distinct powers, one of which is the power of dispostion or transfer. You can't transfer yourself to anyone else, because you are immutably inside your own body. No one else can operate your body, perform labor with it, etc.

[WilliamShrugged]

No, you are lying. Servants can't be sold to someone else. Slaves can. Servants can't be compelled to labor by force. Slaves can.

EPIC FAIL.

In post #203 you state
[QUOTEGarbage. Self-ownership is a logical contradiction. Furthermore, if people owned themselves, they would be able to sell themselves into slavery -- that has certainly been done -- in which case owning a slave would NOT be a violation of rights.] [/QUOTE]

You just said that a person can choose to become a slave (which in real terms would be a servant). If they have the power of choice then how do they not own themselves? I doubt many would choose to become a slave (a forced servant with no deciding power of contract or free will.) A servant can sell their service to someone else as long as it is agreed between them and whoever they are serving (normally set up by contract, verbally or written). Why? Because they own themselves and because of that they get to choose. EXTREME EPIC FAILURE

[WilliamShrugged]

Because in post #190 you wrote:

"I'm pointing out your stupid elitist remarks."

It would be nice if you would provide the post number of comments you are not responding to directly, so readers could check for themselves why you deleted the context without having to go through many previous posts looking for it.

What i am posting is directly what im addressing.

Ecowarrior's pointless post #182 saying

You are institutionalized, unable to shake off the pre-conceived notions bouncing around your head. That is sad. Also, unable see basic common sense devoid of simple logic. Again sad. Think outside the box that your mind has been put into.

Notice all he did was talk down his opponent without making a point? I called that out. He keep assuming something else (like a stance) when my point was his stupid elitist talking down.

Then you decide to be his hero and say in post 196...

There is nothing elitist about advocating equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor.

Clearly you missed what i was referring to in his post (which i stated multiple times, and why i question both of your intelligence). Which i point out had nothing to do with his ideology or stance. So you claim you didn't say that i did in post 201. THEN WHY SAY THE POINTLESS THINGS YOU SAID IN #196??? Did you have to say something that didn't pertain to what i was discussing with Ecowarrior?

[Steven Douglas]

Servants can't be sold to someone else. Slaves can.

Tell that to any MLB player that just got force-traded to another team without any advanced warning, and must pack up and leave within hours, and be ready to suit up and play for his new master. It is by virtue of a contract provision that this 'servant' can indeed be sold to someone else.

Servants can't be sold to someone else. Slaves can. Servants can't be compelled to labor by force. Slaves can.

Then I guess it's safe to say that you were never in the military, huh, Roy? Your ass belongs to Uncle Sam as a matter of contract (even compelled against your will in the case of involuntary conscription), wherein you become the property of the U.S. Government. You can't even get a bad sunburn without risking punishment for damage to U.S. Property. You can also be sold to someone else (shipped and reassigned without your consent to another master within that same regime), and you can be compelled to labor by force.

So tell me, Roy, with regard to certain major league baseball players and members of the military, just as two examples: are they slaves, or are they more like indentured servants?

[erowe1]

No, because that would give landowners an increased welfare subsidy giveaway of unearned wealth at the expense of reducing the earned wealth of the productive. It would do this by bringing back the inefficiencies and counter-productive incentives that LVT removes, as I explained in post #135.

So you don't think the federal budget of $4 Trillion per year should be cut any. You just want it to be funded by a different method.

Should the budget increase? Or is it coincidentally at just the perfect size right now?

Or does that even matter? Maybe your view is that, as long as we have an LVT, it makes no difference how large it is.

[heavenlyboy34]

It is fact. Ownership includes four distinct powers, one of which is the power of dispostion or transfer. You can't transfer yourself to anyone else, because you are immutably inside your own body. No one else can operate your body, perform labor with it, etc.

Now you're just being silly. Can you "operate" your pets? No. Therefore, you do not own pets.

[Roy L]

Tell that to any MLB player that just got force-traded to another team without any advanced warning, and must pack up and leave within hours, and be ready to suit up and play for his new master. It is by virtue of a contract provision that this 'servant' can indeed be sold to someone else.

Nonsense. The player isn't being sold, that's just a metaphor. It's the exclusive right to his services that is being sold. Totally different thing. Nobody is going to try to make him play by beating or starving him. Give your head a shake. All they can do is not pay him, and arrange for no one else in the league to pay him, either. So what? He can still go and play in Japan and make a ton of dough. Slaves can't. That seems to be a slight difference you missed.

Really, Stephen, comparing MLB millionaires to slaves? What were you thinking?

Then I guess it's safe to say that you were never in the military, huh, Roy? Your ass belongs to Uncle Sam as a matter of contract (even compelled against your will in the case of involuntary conscription), wherein you become the property of the U.S. Government.

You'll need to provide some kind of evidence for that claim, and you can't.

You are at least closer with the military than your absurd MLB nonsense. When you join the military you do sign a very draconian contract that subjects you to military discipline, military courts, etc. and may stop you from leaving should you decide you don't like it as much as you expected; but the military can't turn around and sell you to Argentina.

You can't even get a bad sunburn without risking punishment for damage to U.S. Property.

Absurd.

You can also be sold to someone else (shipped and reassigned without your consent to another master within that same regime),

No, that's just a lie. There is no monetary exchange between the units involved in a soldier's transfer.

and you can be compelled to labor by force.

That is indeed close to slavery, even if you do agree to it when you sign up.

So tell me, Roy, with regard to certain major league baseball players and members of the military, just as two examples: are they slaves, or are they more like indentured servants?

MLB players are pampered, privileged rich guys. Soldiers (especially draftees) are much more like slaves. In WW I, the British army executed more than 300 of its own soldiers for desertion. In some armies the toll has been much higher: the origin of the term, "decimate" was a form of Roman military discipline in which every tenth man was executed, and this measure was actually used in the field as late as the 20th century. So yeah, that's very much like being a slave.

[Roy L]

Now you're just being silly. Can you "operate" your pets? No. Therefore, you do not own pets.

A pet is not the one transfering ownership of it to another, and it is no less subject to the will of the second owner than the first. A person, by contrast, is immutably subject to his own will.

[Roy L]

So you don't think the federal budget of $4 Trillion per year should be cut any.

I think most of it should be cut. The NYT had a web page where people could try to balance the budget, and I found it was quite easy to do by just cutting out the obviously wasteful and corrupt stuff like corporate subsidies and bailouts, military procurement, military operations in other countries, etc. But income tax funds less than half of that.

You just want it to be funded by a different method.

Yes, but I also recognize that if government at all levels were not spending a lot of money rescuing the landless from the effects of landowners removing their rights to liberty, Americans would be destitute, starving and dying by the millions, as the landless typically are in countries that have landowning but not massive government rescue programs for the landless.

Should the budget increase? Or is it coincidentally at just the perfect size right now?

It's insanely bloated by corporate welfare and military excess, and could be much smaller still if the landless did not need to be rescued from the harmful effects of the removal of their rights to liberty. IMO LVT should be a more local tax, a role to which it is ideally suited, and the federal government should be financed largely by issuing money (instead of privileging private banksters to do it) and taxing federal privileges like spectrum allocations, IP monopolies (if they can't be abolished outright), use of federal port facilities and airport landing slots, recovering the full market value of oil, mineral and water rights, etc.

Or does that even matter? Maybe your view is that, as long as we have an LVT, it makes no difference how large it is.

The larger the better for both justice and efficiency, up to the full rental value of the land.