I think it proves, again, that I am right: you are trying to change the subject from wealth to income, because you know perfectly well that the wealthy DO NOT pay even their fair share of taxes, let alone the lion's share. Tell it to the rich, greedy parasites who pocket other people's taxes by owning privileges like land titles. Your statement was also about THE WEALTHY -- except that, as you so kindly proved above, it actually wasn't. Shiva already did. You're just wrong.
Your "own land"?? You've already violated everyone else's rights, before you even grew a single bean.
Upgrade your skills, be more productive, contribute more to society... and be paid less, so that rich, greedy, privileged parasites can pocket more in return for their zero contribution to society. The depth of your "thinking"...
... once greedy, thieving rent-seekers get their mitts on it... They'd make the letters of the alphabet into their private property and charge everyone else rent for using them, if they thought they could get away with it.
China switched to geoism -- private property in capital, public ownership of land -- not capitalism. That's why China reduced poverty so much, but capitalist paradises like Pakistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Bangladesh, etc. stay poor. Any jurisdiction can reduce poverty by increasing justice. Most just don't want justice. They want to loot.
goofy of course, landlords don't earn higher ROI than anyone else so why single them out for your 100% ignorant scorn. Highest return goes to most innovative new products since they have for a moment anyway no competitors that can keep up. You should attack innovation!! The USSR did that and starved 60 million to death. OOPs!
Ownership rights are protected under Article 39 of The Property Law of the People’s Republic of China, which gives the owner the right to possess, utilize, dispose of and obtain profits from the real property. Sorry to rock your world! Homepage > Biz Video China's real estate profits up 17% in 2015 CCTV.com 04-20-2016 16:34 BJT Share this: Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on sinaweibo Share on email Font size: http://english.cctv.com/2016/04/20/VIDE9Gf5Ach1SJCTDxquQ7sy160420.shtml China's property companies earned a combined revenue of 772 billion yuan, or 120 billion US dollars, in 2015. That's according to the 92 A-share-listed property firms that so far have released their annual earnings reports for 2015. The companies took in a combined profit of 92 billion yuan last year, a 17 percent rise from 2014. The numbers came in on the back of a rebound in China's property market last year that was due to loosened property curbs. However, the strong performances were not extended to this year. So far, many property companies say they expect to see losses in this year's first quarter. Among the 44 firms that have released preliminary earnings reports for this year, only 10 expect a profit rise in Q1, with 7 expecting profit turn-around, and the rest expecting profit decreases or losses.
I didn't say their property. I said their rights. Specifically, their rights to liberty. By owning land, you own a tiny slice of everyone else's rights to liberty (but how quickly those little slices add up!). The only difference between owning land and owning slaves is that when you own a slave, you own all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you own one of all people's rights.
Then by owning anything you could say the same. If owning land is someones definition of owning liberty then they are free to own or rent some land.
Yes, the right to own the PROFITS FROM USING the land. Not to own the land. As I told you. And you denied, saying you would pay me $10Gs if you were proved wrong. Well, now you have proved you wrong. So, where are my $10Gs? Real estate profits? Absolutely. Property in products of labor is the geoist way. But landowning? Nope. Where are my $10Gs, Ted? Property in products of labor? Of course. Profits from use? Absolutely. That's the geoist way. Privately owning land? Nope. That's the capitalist way. Private profits from land use, not private ownership of land. Where are my $10Gs, Ted? So, you agree that land cannot be privately owned in China any more than in HK, and that therefore both are geoist, and neither is capitalist. So, where are my $10Gs, Ted?
So you oppose the concept of ownership? If we have no societal rules that determine who is the rightful owner of any particular scarce, rivalrous resource, how will we as a society prevent constant conflict over these resources? Liberty is the ability to do what you want with your body and property but not with other people's body and property. I think you're confusing liberty with license. License doesn't consider other people's bodies or property.
No, that is factually incorrect. When I own the product of my labor, I do not deprive you of any liberty you would otherwise have, because that product would not otherwise exist, so you would not otherwise have been at liberty to use it. The land, by contrast, DID otherwise exist, and everyone WOULD otherwise have been at liberty to use it You will now say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing that simple, self-evident, and indisputable fact of objective physical reality. "If owning a person's right to liberty is someones definition of owning liberty then they are free to own or rent some slaves." See how that works?
The Property Law of the Peoples Republic of China, which gives the owner the right to possess, e utilize, dispose of and obtain profits from the real property. Sorry to rock your world!
I oppose ownership of what cannot rightly be owned: nature, culture, people, everything that would otherwise be free. By administering them in trust to secure the equal rights of all the people, not by assigning them as the property of a privileged few at the expense of everyone else. How do we administer use of navigable waterways? They are scarce and rivalrous. How do we allocate the food at a soup kitchen? How do Hong Kong and China administer possession and use of land (not that their systems are perfect, or even very good)? What would make land property -- what has ever made it property? -- but an intent and capability to use force against others' bodies to remove their liberty to use that land? You are incorrect. It is the landowner -- or government acting on his behalf -- that presumes a license physically to assault others' bodies should they seek to exercise their natural liberty to use what nature has provided for all. - - - Updated - - - Profits from use of the property. Not ownership of the land. As already proved. Sorry to demolish your belief system.
So you are claiming that the ownership of any physical matter provided by nature is an assault to others' bodies should they seek to use it contrary to the owner's permission? How are we, as a society, supposed to prevent violent contention over physical matter provided by nature without the concept of ownership? Simply might makes right?
Did slave owners obtain a higher ROI? Why single them out for scorn? I have no interest in attacking high returns. I am attacking UNJUST returns. It doesn't matter if a thief only makes 1% on his investment. It's still stealing. They confiscated PRODUCTS OF LABOR.
I would suggest that you read Chapter 5 of John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt but I will provide a quick summary. The natural right of property addresses that all of nature (and the crops you grow are a part of nature) belongs to all mankind in common. The individual is entitled to take from nature what they require for their support and comfort, so long as they leave "enough, and as good" as for the rest of the common. They're not entitled to anymore than what they require. This is perhaps best summarized by Section If you produced five-times more than you need, more than which you could use for your own "support and comfort" then you have no natural right of property to it and it was dishonestly taken from the "common" violating the natural right of property of all other people that comprise the "common" to which all of nature belongs. In point of fact if you're producing five-times more than what's required for your own support and comfort then you have five-times more land than you have a natural right of property to use. The "support and comfort" limits how much land you can use and how much you can "take from nature" for your use. We can tell when someone has accumulated more "wealth" from nature (all wealth originates in nature) over time because it become apparent that there's no way the can possible spend all of that wealth on their "support and comfort" in their lifetime. This is different than the farmer that has a "bumper crop" where they might produce five-times more than they can use in that single year because that surplus carries them over the 'bad' years where they don't produce enough to provide for their "support and comfort" perhaps due to a lack of rainfall. My family history relates to being farmers and they did have good years with a bumper crop followed by bad years where they actually lost money operating the farm but it balanced out. In the end you really need to study Locke's arguments to gain an understanding of the Natural Right of Property but it can be noted that we're still living under laws based upon "Title of Ownership" in the United States that evolved under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings which was exactly what John Locke was arguing against. For example, under Locke's arguments, if you stop farming the land to provide for your "support and comfort" allowing it to "return to nature" you also lose "title" to the use of the land. You don't actually "own the land" but instead, through your labor, establish "title to use the land" but that title is conditional upon the actual use of the land. Every vacant lot and every piece of unused land that is privately owned by "Title" in the United States is a violation of the Natural Right of Property under Locke's arguments. The land isn't being used and it returns to the "common" because it's not being used to provide for the "support and comfort" of the individual. You can't "Own the Earth" but you can establish a "Right to Use the Earth" but that Right is highly limited.
As I said earlier, my growing five times more than I need to survive doesn't violate any other person's property. None of what you just wrote above proves otherwise. You didn't show whose property I would be violating, nor did you describe the property of theirs that I would be violating.
While the discussion runs off topic this comment is worthy of note, not based upon statutory laws of property, but instead based upon the natural right of property. Under the natural right of property no one actually "owns" anything but instead establishes a "right to consume or use" things but there are two caveats to this. First is that the use or consumption must be related to the "support and comfort" of the person. Next is that there must be "as much, and as good" as left remaining for the "common" which is all others in mankind. Let me provide a simple example. I'm walking through the forest and find a nice tree branch to use as a walking stick. My taking of a single branch doesn't diminish the number of branches that all others might choose to take from the forest so I'm leaving "enough, and as good" as for all other people when it comes to using a branch for a walking stick. Now I might even carve the branch, or trim it down to a suitable size, for use as a walking stick but it's the actual physical use of the branch as a walking stick that establishes my "right of property" to use that branch. There's another caveat and that is I only retain the right to "use" the branch as a walking stick so long as I continue to use it as a walking stick. If I set it aside and stop using it then it's "abandonment" and anyone else that needs a walking stick can lay claim to it and by their actual use they've established their "right of property" to use the branch as a walking stick. I never literally "owned" the branch but I did use it for my "support and comfort" but that right ended the day I stopped using it. We have a natural right to "consume" food, energy, and other products but only if the caveat is met where there is "enough, and as good" as left for everyone else in society that require the same for their basic and necessary support (while their comfort is subjective). If we're eating while others are starving then we're violating their natural right of property because food is a basic necessity for the "support" of the person.
You're violating the "Rights of the Common" which is all of mankind. If you took the time to understand Locke you would understand that no one has a right to "own" anything. They only have a right to "use and consume" for their own support and comfort and even that's limited. If you have five-times more than what you can "use and consume" then you've stolen from nature that which you have no right to.
So my growing more food than I need doesn't actually take, violate, or damage any particular person's property. Which is what I said in the first place.
Locke included life, liberty, and estate (i.e., external goods) in his generic conception of property, so when he argued that the primary purpose of government is to protect property rights, he was not merely referring to material objects. Rather, he meant that a government should protect those fundamental rights (including the right to enjoy the fruits of our labor) that are essential to self-preservation and happiness.http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/john-locke-justification-private-property
totally 100% stupid and 100% liberal of course. If some farmers didn't produce millions of times what they consume then all of mankind would have to be farmers. FYI most humans don't want to be farmers. Do you understand??
Which is the crux of the issue, so: But the legal concept of ownership is an attempt to formalize natural rights to possess and use. Though Locke talks about these, neither has been established logically. But it obviously DOES reduce the number of available branches, and so there is a limit to how many can be taken in this way. As Nozick established, Locke's criterion is logically incoherent, as the last guy can't take the last stick. That means the second last guy can't take the second last stick, either, and so on, all the way up to the first stick. The situation is rescued by the fact that the trees are growing new sticks all the time, so it is possible for everyone who wants a stick to have one, as long as they don't take them too fast. The situation is completely different with land, as each parcel is unique, so there is never as much and as good for the next man; and unlike sticks, no more is being made, so Nozick's argument unzips Locke: because the last man can't take the last parcel, no one can take any parcel. No. There are only two factors that can establish a right of property, and those are the two parts of the non-deprivation principle: if your ownership of the item does not deprive anyone of anything they would otherwise have, and if someone else taking the item from you WOULD deprive you of something you would otherwise have. No, you own it as soon as you remove it from its natural place, because at that point, it is not something others would otherwise have been at liberty to use. But that just evacuates the concept of ownership. No. There is no right to consume what others have produced, as that deprives them of something they would otherwise have. When you consume what you have produced (or consensually traded for), no one is deprived. No. The criterion is if others wanted to use the item at the time you removed it from nature. If so, it was rivalrous, and you owe just compensation to those whom you deprived of it. Nope. There is no such presumption in nature. Our nature as evolved beings is precisely that those who produce enough to feed themselves eat, and those who don't starve, because that's how we all got here.
