Now you are disingenuously pretending that my responses have not been calm in order to fabricate a false impression of unreason. Possibly some reader, somewhere, is stupid enough to fall for that. <yawn> You have no arguments, no facts or logic to offer, and you know you have been proved wrong, so you have to resort to contentless name-calling, as usual. OK, I'll hold my nose. No. It's almost as clear and honest as my position, which means it's several orders of magnitude clearer and more honest than yours.
Please calm down! You think complex production eliminating any notion of private labour is not an argument? God bless you! You're a card. Its great that your automatic responses outdo your deliberative. I'd hug you here! Why do you think the Georgists are clear and honest?
Right. It is an obvious non sequitur. I've read George. His clarity and honesty practically jump off the page.
Zero argument offered! I did see that coming. Obviously I know why you hide from your 'private labour' grunt and I also know why you hide from supporting Georgism. Come on, be a little more adventurous!
That certainly describes your "cretinous" claim -- and pretty much all your other claims, come to that. Readers can confirm for themselves that I do no such thing, and your claim is just another bald fabrication on your part. I am simply being clear and honest, concepts that are all too obviously completely alien to you. Try not to be so evil.
anyone who wants to use anything must pay the owner. Do you want a system where everything is free and you don't pay the owner and so there are no owners? Anarchism?
No argument again. You do whine so. I'll help: "HEY READERS, does private labour in complex production make sense? Clear and honest in hiding from Georgism! You do show yourself up. Calling people evil because they happen to think your argument is simple minded doesn't make that argument cunning!
Nope. Rights are rights and property is property. They're not the same thing. A slave's right to control his own body and not have his physical body violated is a right. A slave is not legitimate property because enslavement necessarily violates his physical body. Similarly, a person's right to use his own property to construct a device is a right. It's not property. A patent cannot be property. It's is simply a violation of other's rights to their own property. Unlike your previous two examples, owning land doesn't violate anyone else's physical body or property. Your confusion between rights and physical things is one of the many sources of your error.
Rights: Are a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something (property) or to act in a certain way. Property: A thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively. Property can be acquired as a result exercising our right to expend our labours. If owning land violates anyone's rights, then the U.S. government is the largest violator owning about 33% of all the lands. And slavery in the U.S. is illegal, and not synonymous with wage paid employment.
wrong of course, all men have God's or nature's natural right to liberty. if their liberty is taken away by liberals they still retain the natural right to liberty. This is Jefferson's conception of it so that violent liberal govt can never assume the power to grant or deny rights. Nature's God is above violent liberals.
Shouldn't we think that the tragedy of the anti-commons is more than just reference to technology? Is land underutilised because of private ownership?
If you have private ownership then in theory any commodity is utilized properly. If you have libcommie ownership land utilization would be determined by the wild guessing of the libcommie bureaucrat monopolists in power at the time
any libcommie management of "market failure" will ultimately result in another 120 million slowly starved to death.
That you think neoclassical economics is libcommie, a nonsensical view coupled with a nonsensical term, isn't interesting.
I think libcommieism slowly starved 120 million to death and will do it again if given the chance. They look at China saving 100's of million form starvation with Republican capitalism and say, lets switch to socialism. Go figure!
No need to confirm the silliness of the libcommie term. You've already been educated on that. That you maintain such nonsense only informs me that you're not interested in credible comment
It’s nonsense that our founders saw big liberal government is the source of evil in human history and then those who believe in big government Hitler Stalin MaoAnd our liberals came along and were even more evil and even than our founders imagined
Equivocation fallacy. The liberty right that landowning removes is the LEGAL right to liberty. "By liberals"? You are a joke. It wasn't liberals who took away slaves' rights to liberty. It wasn't liberals who removed people's liberty to earn a living without paying landowners for permission. Jefferson knew government exists to SECURE rights. When it violates them for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites like landowners, that is the opposite of securing them. You are a joke.
Every one of the thousands of valuable vacant lots in every major city proves it is. Owned land often sits vacant and unused, rented land almost never.
