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.
Right. You advocate injustice, I advocate justice.Yes that is exactly what I advocate.
Except if he takes away others' liberty to use land.I want reparations instead of penalties. If a man takes something away, I want that returned.
But in fact, you know that that is what it is.Now as far as rewards go I will not even entertain the idea that justice is rewards commensurate with contributions.
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.The value put to rewards and the contributions are completely subjective.
Yes, it can, as proved above.As such it can not be used to objectively define justice.
That's an obvious lie.Yes I would be ok with someone homesteading the sun and the air.
That's not the point, and you know it.I don't see how it is possible with our technology at the present.
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?So I would not accept any rents until it is possible.
You are lying, and you know it.
Propertarian nonsense. They can't be sold.Human organs and bodies are the property of their owners.
If you can't sell it, you don't own it.Only the owners of their property can give it away.
Absurd non sequitur.And absolutely property rights should exist for them. That means you can not murder me or tax me.
ROTFL!!! No, that's just another flat-out stupid lie from you, not to mention a blatant self-contradiction:You not at liberty to use it until someone puts their labor into it.
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.
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.It is just for the land to go to the person who put work into it instead of the latecomer.
??? They often ARE property under patent and copyright laws. Like land, they have been made into property by law. That is the point.Ideas and words are not scarce that is the reason they are not property.
Ignoratio elenchi. Making ideas and words into property MAKES them scarce. That is why they are made into property.I do not support intellectual property.
Equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor.What are your premises?
No, of course you won't. Don't be stupid.List them and I will show you how I am right.
I haven't hidden them or made you guess. I have stated them frequently, including in this thread. But in post #126, you wrote:Instead of hiding and making me guess at them.
"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.
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.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.
HOW COULD PUTTING A PRODUCT OF LABOR ON LAND THAT NATURE PUT THERE MAKE THAT LAND A PRODUCT OF LABOR?
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 had labor mixed into it.
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 is property.
Wrong again. That is literally nonsense. Land, by definition, HASN'T had labor "mixed into" it. It is what nature provided.All of that land can be considered a good that had labor mixed into it.
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.Bread has nothing to do with your claim that society produces goods that people use.
Wrong. The comatose, the criminal, etc. give society no benefit.Society gets a benefit from every single individual in it.
But they still have rights.
It's subjective in the true sense: it's imaginary, exists only in your own mind, and is nothing but some $#!+ you made up.It is a subjective benefit and as such it can not be taxes.
Clearly false. You don't face down armed criminals. Society pays someone to do that for you.My participation in society as a peaceful individual brings peace to society as much as they bring peace to me.
Refuted above.As such those goods are equal.
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?A bread seller gives me as much benefit as my money gives him.
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.Everything is a equal subjective trade.
I don't propose to tax trades. Landowning is not a trade.As such you can not levy a tax on that.
When did I voluntarily give up my right to use the land others claim they own?Even if trades were not equal but they must according to basic logic they are still just since they are done voluntarily.
Right: it is too easy for ME to win, and I have already won it from a moral standpoint.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.
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."No one taken this liberty from you, you never had it in the first place.
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.You have liberty to take unused land.
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:Stop being a parasite, trying to take something for nothing.
"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