Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to that effect, or admit you are just makin' $#!+ up again.

The wrong people to defend would be rich, greedy, privileged parasites, and you are the one constantly defending them, not me.

Provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to that effect, or admit you are just makin' $#!+ up again.

The irresponsible and lazy would be rich, greedy, privileged parasites, who demand to be legally entitled to take from others without making any contribution in return, and do not care that their greed is harming the community and their own future. And it is you who defend them, not me.

That's objectively horrible.

 

I don't buy the commie line that only a few people should control all the land. I'm not a fan of violence nor monopolies.

 

That's objectively absurd and disingenuous garbage from you, because if everyone had waited to have children until they had secure housing and secure finances, our species would have become extinct almost immediately.

That's objectively horrible.

Responsible people pay their debts, and the only way to repay our heritage is by our posterity.

Children are also our posterity, literally why we are here, and the only way to repay our heritage.

Wrong again. Sometimes having children is the only form of resistance left. A long time ago, I read about a South American tribe that had been enslaved by the Spanish conquistadors. They unanimously decided to refrain from sexual relations because they could not bear to bring children into the life of terror, pain, toil, privation, suffering, degradation and despair the Spaniards had imposed on them. In a few decades, they were extinct. But to my way of thinking, they should have had as many children as they could raise to adulthood, and raised them with one thought only: revenge against the Spaniards. If it took 1000 years, they should await their opportunity to rise up, and exterminate the descendants of the vicious, evil scum who had enslaved them. The evil might think twice if their victims invariably did everything they could to exact revenge.

Yes, well, you know what a lot of people did to escape poverty not too long ago? Collaborated with enemy occupation forces.

Some things are more important than escaping poverty.

For 99% of our species' existence, almost no one escaped poverty. For 90+%, no one at all did. Survival, including that of one's posterity, is more important than escaping poverty.

No it isn't. It's just a fact. They are only needful because they can't afford to both raise their kids and pay the privileged full market value just for permission to work, shop, and access the desirable public services and infrastructure they need to use to raise their kids.

That is nothing but evil, despicable, disingenuous filth, because they did NOT want the lives the privileged forcibly inflicted on them, and I will thank you to remember it.

EVERYONE is deserving of their RIGHTS, whose forcible, uncompensated removal by the privileged you constantly rationalize, justify and excuse.

THAT'S objectively horrible.

 

Right, me neither. Land should be controlled by millions of different private users who each, in return for the subsidy of secure tenure and the publicly created economic advantage it confers, make just compensation to the community of those whom they deprive of it.

You said you favor sovereign private landowning. That's inherently violence and monopoly.

 

Did I say I favor sovereign private landowning? Did I? Because I don't even know what that means.

I don't think a few hundred people should own all the land in the country. I'm not a fan of this commie thing of yours.

 

No. No one. How many more times, and in how many more different ways, do I have to state my position in clear, grammatical English before you will find a willingness not to grossly mischaracterize it?

 

If no one owns it, no one can 'control' it.

Even animals stake out territory.

 

Gotta be careful of those commies, they come up with all kinds of schemes to steal you stuff that you have rightously earned with the fruits of your labors...like you guns, your business and your land.

 

He wants the state to own land but not call it owning land.

 

1) Who said everyone has to wait? Some people have enough resources by the time they're 21, others don't. You breed according to your circumstances, not your impulses. Children deserve better than that.

2) Right, so you admit that these people breeding when they can't afford to, are not interested in escaping poverty. That's a start!

3) Yes, until we got to the 20thC in the First World, when/where we became free enough to make our own destinies.

4) No, they are not NEEDFUL, because they could have chosen not to have kids. They are merely WANTFUL.

 

Yes, apparently the semantics make a medieval monopoly okay. Almost makes it seem 'caring'. Kings often boasted of their care for the peasants they allowed to scrape a living from royal lands. Great guys, those medieval Kings. So benevolent .. so administrating .. so owning everything.

 

How would non-ownership of land work? How would any structure ever be built? How could there be houses or businesses?

You do know what land ownership is; right? It is the legally protected right to occupy a certain, defined space. Who would build anything without such protection?

We would have 300million people, who think food comes from a grocery store, suddenly be turned into wandering nomads. That would result in untold suffering.

Do you want that?

 

Our pal wants to take the little plots of land, purchased via the sweat and discipline of working and middle class folk, and give it to lazies who don't want to give up their funsies. In other words, you could not find a LESS communist model. Communism is brutally simple - you want to be fed and housed? You work for it.

Capitalism is the only model which allows the non-productive to reap the benefits of the productive, but democracy means no one is forced to comply with that model.

 

Yes, they do want that. This is a game of thrones. Kings and peasants, literally.

 

No. That's what crank is advocating. I'm pointing out the consequences, in a neoliberal economy that requires we all consume (inc. junk, no matter...) to keep the economy afloat.

MMT shows we don't have to consume just for the sake of consumption ...which will please crank ... to maintain a productive economy.

 

How about a form of government in which education, healthcare and public infrastructure are supplied by the state at no cost to individual citizens, because so long as the resources are available, those things can be made available by the state, on behalf of the entire community.

 

And women often end up 'carrying the can' for that lack of responsibility.

That's why the better solution is to guarantee secure housing and employment, and then expect responsible behaviour from people, as part of the social contract.

Otherwise we have the protests we are seeing now, in the absence of a social contract offered by the community to all it's members ie, secure housing and employment in return for responsible behaviour.

 

Apparently it is forbidden to call a communist a commie. I suppose we have to use the full word: communist.

 

Yes.

It means landowners do not answer to anyone.

That's how private landowning ends, because of the positive feedback.

You mean, abolition of child factory labor?

Clearly false. What do you think people did before ownership of land was invented by the Romans? Google "history of village commons" and start reading.

Brute animal possession is not ownership.

 

1) That's a choice women make via their choice of mate, and subsequent attitude to marriage. If you (women) don't want to be in that situation, marry better men .. and stay married to them. If you approach the mating game irresponsibly, then you are as much to blame as the man who lacks responsibility.

2) The solution to what? Irresponsibility? You must be joking, BW. Providing freebies has never made people responsible. It actually does the opposite - our nature dictates that reality. Even lab rats prove it, by becoming fat, stupid, and lazy when all their needs are met. A couple of generations of those rats later, and the young no longer have the skill or interest in fending for themselves. The driver of responsible behaviour is awareness of danger - the old fear of starvation. We lose that, and we lose our ability to fight for our survival. People only turn to Govt now, because they've been taught that that's where the means of survival come from ... like fat, stupid, lazy lab rats. They no longer consider the TOOLS (free education, clean water, freedom, opportunity, etc) for survival sufficient, they want Govt to wield those tools for them too. They want not to have to use those tools themselves. They want to sit still and wait to be fed ... ratlike.

3) The protests are the rats turning on their feeders. The social contract has already been met via the boons listed above. Free education, welfare, clean water, freedom of choice, etc. These and nationalised healthcare are all the tools we need. We can use those tools to secure our survival, or we can leave them hanging in the shed and wait for the next feeding - putting ourselves at the mercy of people and circumstances beyond our control, and ever needful of more support with every lost skill and driver.

 

I'm all for an economy not predicated on spastic consumption, yes.

 

Not me. But if no one has secure resources, everyone has to wait; and until a few thousand years ago that was almost everyone, almost always.

But until very recently in history, almost no one did. Following your rule would have extinguished our species.

You breed because that is literally why we are here.

But somehow, adults don't deserve better than to be robbed of the fruits of their labor for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites...? Somehow, once they are adults it's their fault, not the fault of the despicable, evil scum robbing them?

No, they just have priorities in addition to escaping poverty.

Nope. We are still not free enough. Governments have simply had to step in and rescue us from enslavement by landowners and other rich, greedy, privileged parasites through minimum wage laws, welfare, labor standards laws, public education, health care and pensions, union monopoly laws, etc. or court violent revolution.
[/quote]4) No, they are not NEEDFUL, because they could have chosen not to have kids.[/quote]
Non sequitur. Their choice to have kids does not alter the fact that they are needful because they are being robbed.

More of your absurd and disingenuous blame-the-victim filth.

 

Tell that to the state

 

1) The majority of First Worlders own property. I know that rattles your cage, but there it is. 65% even in America, and that's considered low. It's considerably higher in the UK, Australia, Europe, etc. Best to make peace with it, and work towards your own slice.

2) Until recently, family groups were more responsible and stable .. and so even the poorest managed to keep everyone fed and securely housed. Being able to afford kids is not a function of how much you earn, it's a function of how you live.

3) Adults make their choices. Adults are supposed to be responsible. If they decide down the track that they don't like the choices they made, that's their own problem. Children don't have that freedom of choice, nor that responsibility.

4) What other priorities? Fast food? Watching TV? Evading personal responsibility? Gimme a break. If you have kids and aren't living in a way which secures their food and shelter (IOW, frugality, stability, intact family, no bad habits, and relentless self-discipline), you have no business having other priorities. Ensuring your kids aren't compromised by your own failings, is your top priority.

5) They CHOOSE to have kids .. therefore they cannot be called needful. They DELIBERATELY SOUGHT OUT the poverty which results from that choice. That's all free will and wants .. nothing to do with need.

6) They are not victims, when all is free choice. Calling them victims is obscene.

 

Nicely. Land users would just pay the market rent to the community that creates the land's value and secures exclusive tenure for the user instead of to a private landowner in return for doing and contributing nothing.

Same as now in places where land is leased by users rather than owned, like Hong Kong, China, Monaco, public land, etc.

Through voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transactions instead of stealing and extortion.

Count on it.

No it isn't. That's exclusive tenure. Tenants get exclusive tenure without owning land. Ownership consists of four rights: use, control, benefit and disposition. Productive use with exclusive tenure does not require a right of disposition.

I agree exclusive tenure is necessary. Ownership is not.

That is nothing but absurd nonsense unrelated to anything I have said.

It's nonsense. You could with equal "logic" claim that non-ownership of land would cause smallpox.