I need and deserve my right to liberty, which landowners forcibly remove without making just compensation. Nope. Greedy most accurately describes the landowner, who intends to make others pay HIM for the advantages government, the community and nature provide. The landowner qua landowner is always a pure parasite, a pure thief, pure evil. Nope. No amount of work can rightly buy others' rights to liberty, whether in the form of slave deeds or land deeds. What an infantile confession of intellectual bankruptcy.
money is how Jobs and Gates keep score, how investors keep score, and how the capitalist system keeps score. Socialism has no score keeping system so no one knows what is efficient activity and what is not.
if the pay was great the free market would increase the price until it wasn't. Too bad you cant understand how freedom works. This is typical of liberalism.
The car's value does not consist of his or anyone else's rights to liberty in the first place. The land title's value does. Having the "liberty" to buy back a bit of your right to liberty along with everyone else's is not the same thing as actually having a right to liberty.
Right. Nazi and other fascist governments typically consider landowners' property rights the most important, certainly more than the right to life.
Why are you pretending that is relevant to the proof that your claims are the exact, diametric opposite of the truth? There can be no free market where people are stripped of their rights to liberty without just compensation and forced to subsidize greedy, privileged parasites.
A market in privilege is not free, but it still increases price until it's not so attractive. That's how the landowner gets rich without making any productive contribution. At least I understand what freedom is, and what it isn't. That IS typical of liberalism.
so then you have defeated yourself by saying land is not attractive. The seller gains more by selling land. Ain't capitalism great!!
in your commie world freedom is paying a monopoly govt for land to live on rather than a capitalist who must have a competitive price
How does a land owner take your liberty away from you? Unless, he takes your land away from you? How can someone take away from you, something you don't have in the first place? The answer, you decided you owned someone else's land. But you don't. No liberty is taken from you at all, you are simply not being allowed to take someone else's. And for you the liberty to steal is the one you desire most. Because you are lazy and earning something is too hard for you. The rest of us can all do it but you are special. Be it land or cars or houses or any other property you like the look of and feel self entitled to. Freedom for you is freedom to steal instead of earn. No one cares that you have lost this liberty at all. In fact we are all very glad about it. Cry on, mummy will always love you. She can socially contribute on your behalf and you can live off of her instead of me.
Of course it's attractive. The subsidy to the landowner is so exorbitant that the price of making yourself the recipient of that subsidy is astronomical. Maybe the seller doesn't understand how lucrative the land subsidy is. As a majority of households own land, a substantial number of them must be below average intelligence.
And are then rich. As opposed to the non-landowner, who struggles to pay rent for 30 years, and then has to pay even more rent.
Land is always a monopoly no matter who owns it. That is very much the point. The price of land is AFTER the competition. Landowners can't compete with each other because they can't increase supply. It is land USERS who must compete for the fixed supply of land.
By forcibly depriving me of my liberty to use the land, liberty I would have if he did not exist. Attentive readers will notice that Baff is again disingenuously trying to use an ad hominem fallacy by making this exchange about me personally rather than addressing the actual issue: the injustice of private property in land. How could it be "my" land? I have a natural right to liberty, not a right to deprive others of their liberty by excluding them from the land nature provided as greedy, evil landowners do. I would have my liberty if the landowner did not take it from me. A man dying of thirst stumbles from the desert into an oasis. He goes to the spring to drink the water nature provided (something that he did not have in the first place). But an evil, greedy, murdering thief (i.e., a "landowner") tells him, at gunpoint (I know you like that part), that the spring is his land, his private property, and he may not drink unless he pays the landowner full market value for the water: a year's labor. The landowner has thus taken something from the dying man that the dying man did not have in the first place: water to drink. See how easily I always prove you objectively wrong? No, that is just another false and disingenuous ad hominem fabrication on your part. I have told you repeatedly that no one can rightly own land. So now, true to form, you are just makin' $#!+ up and falsely attributing it to me. Again. Attentive readers will note that you are again trying to evade the issue by making this exchange all about me personally, and what you falsely and groundlessly claim are my personal failings, rather than addressing the institutionalized injustice I have identified. You don't either. That is just self-evidently and indisputably false as a matter of objective physical fact. I would be at liberty to use the land if the landowner were not preventing me. You cannot dispute this fact. You can deny it, like you can deny that 1+1=2, and with equal reason. You can -- and will -- try to distract readers' attention from it with your false, disingenuous and disgraceful ad hominem fabrications. But you cannot dispute it. Land could only be "someone else's" because they have taken it from everyone else. I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," the fact that the worker does all the producing of wealth and the landowner none, and the landowner ends up with all the wealth and the worker with none, somehow means it is the WORKER who is doing the stealing....??? You are making a fool of yourself with such grotesque, absurd, despicable, and self-evidently disingenuous filth. Attentive readers will note that you are again trying to evade the issue by making this exchange all about me personally, and what you falsely and groundlessly claim are my personal failings, rather than addressing the institutionalized injustice I identify. No, that is just you saying the exact, diametric opposite of the truth again. The worker -- that's me -- is the one who is not lazy, and earns the product of his labor. It is the landowner qua landowner who never earns the rent: he just charges the worker full market value for the advantages of the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at his location. The landowner qua landowner by definition never provides anything. The landowner qua landowner is always by definition the pure parasite, the pure thief, pure evil. Attentive readers will note that you are again trying to evade the issue by making this exchange all about me personally, and what you falsely and groundlessly claim are my personal failings, rather than addressing the institutionalized injustice I identify. Attentive readers will note that you are again trying to evade the issue by making this exchange all about me personally, and what you falsely and groundlessly claim are my personal failings, rather than addressing the institutionalized injustice I identify. No, you are just making false and groundless ad hominem accusations to deflect readers' attention from the facts, because you cannot offer any facts or logic to support your false and evil beliefs. Attentive readers will note that you are again trying to evade the issue by making this exchange all about me personally, and what you falsely and groundlessly claim are my personal failings, rather than addressing the institutionalized injustice I identify. They will also note that you are disingenuously pretending that there is no difference in the property status of the land that nature provided and the cars and houses that had to be provided by labor. That is the original Marxist conflation of land with products of labor. No, that is merely the inevitable false accusation against the advocate of justice by the greedy, privileged landowner who, with the kind assistance of government force, actually DOES steal instead of earn. Attentive readers will note that you are again trying to evade the issue by making this exchange all about me personally, and what you falsely and groundlessly claim are my personal failings, rather than addressing the institutionalized injustice I identify. Do not presume to speak for others who do not share your false and evil beliefs or your desire to steal from the productive. <yawn> Infantile and despicable. You are heaping disgrace upon yourself. It is the landowner who demands to live off others' labor while making no contribution to production, not the worker.
monopoly is one seller who is largely freed of market competition. one banana may have one seller but that does not make the banana seller a monopolist. Do you understand?
a commercial landowner will lose money for first 30 years so I would hardly call that living off others labor. Where do you get this utter BS!
Get a mortgage. Capitalism is your friend. People are willing to help you. Otherwise, save. And yes you will have to struggle for 30 years. At least 30 years. Quite possibly multiple generations. Just like everyone else has. No one owes you jack all. The world is not yours, land is not yours unless you bought it or were gifted it by someone who did. We call this the right to own property and it is the social norm worldwide. And always has been. I presume to speak for my society in this. I presume to speak for my country in this. I presume to speak for your country in this. I presume to speak for the entire human race in this. You are morally off compass mate. Way off compass. A would be thief who wants a share of the riches but doesn't want to share the work required to get there. Who doesn't respect the efforts and sacrifices others have made to get to where he wants to be, because he has never made those same sacrifices himself. Because he is a sponger. Sponge off mummy mate. She loves you. No one else does. The idea that you are a worker deserving a share of anything is quite laughable. You talk like a shirker, not a worker. Is 30 years hard labour too much for you mate? Well it wasn't for me. And it wasn't for my father or his father before him, and the labour cost of my land hasn't been just 30 years it's been 30 years per generation for multiple generations going as far back as the human race does. You lazy bastard. Think 30 years buys you that? Not even willing to dedicate your own single life to share that which has already costed so many lives? Your life isn't worth that much to anyone. Damn straight I will forcibly deny you the liberty to steal my land. As will everyone else. Get used to it. If you wish to be on the receiving end of human violence, this is a very obvious way to become so. It wasn't so easy to get that people are typically willing to give it away to the first whiney bitch who likes the look of it. Recipe for war, sonny. Oldest one out there. I think you've still got some growing up to do.
so if you sacrifice for 30 years you can get rich? too bad that after 30 years the taxes are more than the original mortgage payments. This is why old people very often have to sell their homes. too bad most people are not willing to sacrifice for 30 years even if it means getting rich which it doesn't in real estate. obviously "if then you were rich was true" everyone would know it, prices would go up and then it would take 40 years to pay it off.
There are other bananas that are perfectly substitutable for any given banana, and the supply of bananas can be increased by labor. Neither of those conditions hold for land, which is why it is a canonical example of monopoly. Compare the market for original paintings. Each owner of an original painting is a monopolist, because there are no perfect substitutes for any original, and the supply cannot be increased. Do you understand?
That is absurd and disingenuous nonsense. If he goes into debt to buy the land, he merely pledges the rent to the bank in return for eventual ownership he can't afford to pay for now. He is living off others' labor because they pay him for doing and contributing nothing, and he ends up with a valuable asset in return for no contribution. You are the primary source of BS around here, AFAICT. The fact that someone might have gone into debt to buy slaves doesn't mean he is any less a greedy thief and parasite than the slave owner who paid cash. Give your head a shake.
No, silly boy, Standard Oil wasn't actually a monopoly, because there was lots of perfectly substitutable oil being produced by others. But the landowner is always a monopolist, just like the owner of an original painting: the supply of what he is selling cannot be increased, and there is no perfect substitute.
That is merely a measure of how much the subsidy to the landowner has increased in the interim, how much more the community is giving to the landowner net of any taxes. The land's value is NOTHING BUT the market's estimate of how much more the landowner will take from the community by owning the land than he will pay in taxes on it. Nonsense. When challenged, such fables are never supportable by actual facts. Old people have medical and other bills that put their finances under strain, but property taxes are rarely more than a small fraction of the land rent. It often does. But to go from middle class all the way to rich just by owning land typically takes longer, more like 60 years. Which is exactly what has been happening. 60 years ago you could buy a typical building lot for a year's median after-tax wages. Now it's about five years'.
