Yeah, as I said, income is the transfer of property. Are you saying that income is not the transfer of property? For example: I give you a pebble. The pebble is your income.
Who secures and adjudicates those owners' titles? And why is that over-arching power not the actual owner? No, you LOVE monopolies so much that you want every landowner to have one.
1) You cannot make people work. The days of universal productivity are over. Killed by the insane profligacy of First World welfare. You can 'provide' all the jobs you want, but you cannot make people do them. 2) Sorry, but that's bullsh!t. A family on welfare can live quite well when they spend appropriately. Someone earning a full time wage can be struggling due to their poor spending choices. 3) In a First World democracy, there is no one else to blame for starvation but the starving. We don't live in Bangladesh. 4) O.M.G .. you literally want the state to control your children. Why not just turn the clocks back to the 15th century, and let the King take over? Or how about some Big Brother, to help you indoctrinate your mini work units? 5) All parents know the equation. Effort pays academically, and by effort I mean PARENTAL effort. If they choose not to put in that effort, they do so knowing the cost to their kids. And anyone can give 'reasons' (aka, excuses) for not choosing in their child's best interests. If you're walking and talking and live in the First World, all are excuses. Coincidentally, that's why public education, public healthcare, and reasonable assistance payments are so important - because they remove the only real impediments to success. When a society has these, those who still fail are clearly doing so as a matter of choice.
A non-landowning, arbitrary judge. I'm not sure that you understand what the word "monopoly" means. It makes it difficult to have a meaningful conversation.
No we most certainly and indisputably aren't, any more than slaves are free to choose to buy their liberty from their owners. We are all born into rent slavery, and having to PAY for something is not the same as being "free to choose" it. GET IT??? Stop talking such evil, despicable, disingenuous filth. Exactly like the slave's "freedom" to purchase his liberty from his owner. Liberty means NOT HAVING TO PAY ANYONE ELSE for PERMISSION to exercise your right to liberty. GET IT???
It is not equivocation in the least. Now THAT is equivocation. Or if you require me to pay YOU for permission to use the sidewalk in front of my house. GET IT???? And I pointed out that they in fact are. When A demands that B pay him for what C is providing, A is FORCIBLY TAKING property from B. GET IT???
If such a judge has the power to enforce his decisions, he is the landowner, according to your own definition. Monopoly means one seller. Land is always a monopoly because each parcel is unique, and its supply cannot be augmented by labor.
Yes. C is involved because that is who provides the value that A is forcibly taking from B. Without C, B has nothing for A to forcibly take. GET IT????
Please demonstrate. Every bushel of wheat is unique. Every 2x4 is unique. We're talking about ownership. Do we want the state to own every patch of land or do we want millions of people to own various bits of land? Is anyone else watching this thread? Am I completely off base here?
And you are objectively wrong. Right. It is the property transferred to yield a net gain in property. Right. Because it is the property I have gained, not the act of transferring it.
So I'd rather that me and all my neighbors each own a piece of property than the state own all the property. In other words, I'm not a communist.
Because today's productive capacity of the economy is higher than ever, there is now a shortage of above poverty entry level jobs. Wrong analysis. see above. Btw, "the best form of welfare is a job"....slogan from conservatives in Australia who don't like paying taxes to fund welfare....even while involuntary underemployment is increasing. Is this true in the US? Nevertheless, solving the current underutilisation of labour problem by turning people into welfare recipients is not a good strategy. Better to create jobs which the private sector cannot profit from, but which the community will support. [Btw, there is nothing sadder than a little private sector shopkeeper, trying to make a living, sitting behind the counter all day long, and no-one comes in...] We have covered this ground: 1st world poverty and 3rd world starvation both have systemic macroeconomic causes, as well as causes related to individual choice. No. I want the state to be responsible for the nation's education curriculum, based on universal access to the sum of knowledge, as described (consistent with students' capabilities). I have underlined those words because they highlight the responsibility of government. BUT.....your 3 identified items are obviously being squeezed in most countries due to misplaced neoliberal budgetary constraints ("austerity"). Due to macroeconomic mismanagement by governments following neoliberal economic orthodoxy.
You have simply side-stepped the fact that many cannot afford to own or administer "a small piece of land", where work is available, regardless of how government administers ownership of land.
Many low income people do rent, thereby reducing them to near poverty or lower, or forced to move to more affordable localities greater distances from work. Will you support public housing?
Sorry, but you forgot content. You also forgot to mention that- by answering the questions posed- you'd necessarily have to destroy your supply side economics right wing claptrap.
Yes, and no. The only true freedom is when the peasants can own land as easily as the king. These commie/georgists want lands to go back to the king, and us rebirthed as peasant tenants.
I never mentioned 'supply side economics'. I'm not even remotely interested in your beancounter jargon, Reivs. My argument is with the humans who refuse to be the change they demand.
Why do they rent when it's possible to buy a house in America for $5000k? Doesn't matter where the place is, since even a family on welfare can save $5000 over a few years of very tight self-discipline - therefore no mortgage, no need to work. And if you even think about mentioning the 'rough neighbourhoods' and 'tired houses' that $5000 buys, you will be conceding that it's CHOICE. Places in public housing should be strictly on the basis of a demonstrated commitment to reducing poverty. IE, no addicts, no morbidly obese people, no long term unemployed, no gamblers, etc etc. Otherwise it's entirely unjust - both in practice, and morally in respect of the starving in the Third World. And it should always ALWAYS be wherever there is a space. Take it or leave it. Those who are serious about leaving poverty don't expect to be able to live wherever they like. Heck, even I can't do that .. and I'm not poor.
You appealed to the right wing supply siders with the usual 'blame the poor' rhetoric. How long are you going to pretend to be left wing, given your ignorance of class?
1) No, I'm talking about people. You cannot make people work, no matter how much you want to. And no, money isn't the key. Huge swathes of us simply no longer want to be productive citizens. WE caused that, with our nanny state 'welfare'. When humans think they're completely safe, they get very very lazy. 2) Of course it's true in the US. Migrants do it all the time. 3) Public education should be entirely unbiased and apolitical, because it's FUNDED BY THE PEOPLE. People who are all different and have different philosophies and politics. Public schools should never touch upon anything beyond straight academics. Overreaching into philosophical/social matters makes it impossible to be apolitical and unbiased, and you cannot do that when you're only representing half of those who are funding you, and half of the parents. 4) Obviously. What's your point?