What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

Right, you'd make just (market) compensation to the community of those you excluded, because only the community can ensure that everyone's rights are secured and reconciled when there is exclusive land tenure (which is why we need government in the first place). That way greedy, evil, parasitic landowners can't just forcibly exclude others, violating their rights without making just compensation, as you would prefer to do.

 

And no harder. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production (natural resources and producer goods), capitalism is private ownership thereof. Simple.

Both deceitfully try to convince you that the other is the only alternative.

Discussion being better than force.

 

I'm the one here who actually understands and respects human nature, child.

False. My ideas are based on the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, including the fact that no human being ever owned land until a few thousand years ago, when greedy, evil parasites figured out that if they could just get ownership of the land, they would be able to legally take everything from everyone else.

 

It is impossible to buy land that is not stolen.

It is stolen every day that people's liberty to use it is held to ransom by landowners. You appear to know nothing about the Middle Ages or how landowning figured into the execrable conditions that obtained for 99% of the people.

 

Better than trying to make sense of Marx....

 

You tosspot here as you have no means to critique Marx. I'm sure the True Levellers understood Marx more than your whine.

 

No need to pretend. The exclusive holder deprives all resident citizens of it because they pretty much all would use it to one extent or another. Think of how hunter-gatherers or nomadic herders use pretty much all the land non-exclusively.

ROTFL!! It is the private landowning model that is and has historically always been perfect for exploitation. O B V I O U S L Y.

 

And you yet you still completely ignore the reality that all sentient beings will always take the path of least resistance. There is no 'moral code' which magically makes us happy to forfeit the fruits of our toil to those who refuse to earn it. Never has been, never will be. Our largess is limited to care of the young and the old (and the old, only for as long as they're useful).

 

That's not reality. It's nothing like reality.

You mean landowners. True. That is exactly what I am counting on.

Not rich, greedy, evil, privileged, parasitic landowners. Right. Hold that thought.

 

But the community would be the evil, privileged, parasitic landowner. They're who I have to pay rent to.

 

There's so much wrong with that. First, whether you consider 5 different "flavors" of capitalism or 5 different "flavors" of socialism, both have common threads of elementary distinctions running through them, and the "thread" running through all capitalisms is fully contrary and irreconcilable with the "thread" running through all socialisms. And those threads are:

Capitalism: private ownership of production for private profit.

Socialism: collective worker ownership of production for mutual benefit.

These define each. ALL capitalism is dedicated to private ownership and private control for private profit. And then each different instance of capitalism has it's own unique features supporting the underlying "thread". And those different features are the "modifications" to which you referred.

Same with socialism, which leads us to your second error. No country has ever succeeded at establishing a functioning, stable, worker-owned-and-directed economy (socialism). So without having any cases of established, stable socialism to point to, we have no case of "socialism" to discuss or hold up as an example in any way.

The third and final point, which you actually stated well, is "countries that tolerate the politics of both left and right and allows them to interface do better". But we have to be careful because far too many understand such wording as meaning that familiar old idea that "some countries are both socialist and capitalist". But a careful reading of your statement reveals that it deftly dodges such an error, whether you intended it to or not. There are countries that have combined policies and politics of both the left and the right. The USA did following FDR. The Scandinavian countries do likewise. And of course none of them are socialist. But they all were and are capitalist with the addition of socially beneficial programs to "soften" the harsh edges of capitalism and make it user-friendly. But it is still capitalism since it's basis is private ownership for private profit.

 

1) Yes, it is. And refusal to work with human nature is by design. People do it because working with theoretical (non-existent) models obviates actual work.

2) When you make peace with the fact that landowners are 'the people', your fantastical ideas will mature.

3) Home-owning families in working and middle class suburbs are not 'rich, greedy, evil, privileged, parasites. Forfeit our freedom to each own our small plot, and you will very quickly see what real 'evil, parasitic, privileged, greedy' looks like.

 

No, that's just self-evidently and indisputably false. Take a look at a professional sports event on TV and try to tell us that sentient beings always choose the path of least resistance. You are talking utter, absurd nonsense.

I'm the one who is working with human nature as it actually is, not your absurd fantasy.

Clear, deep thinking, about theoretical models or anything else, is actual work. You just don't think so because you have no experience of it. See the research showing that high-level tournament chess -- the ultimate non-existent theoretical model -- is as physically demanding as typical construction work.

In fact, they are not the people. They are a minority of the people, and those who benefit from the system of landowning are a much, much smaller minority.

Those who profit from landowning are.

The "freedom" to forcibly remove and own others' rights to liberty, you mean....?

We already know what it looks like, because we can see it in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where landowning has been well established, but government did not intervene massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners. You can verify it for yourself in modern landowning utopias like Pakistan, Honduras, the Philippines, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Paraguay, etc.

 

No, because unlike the evil, privileged, parasitic private landowner, the community is the SOURCE and CREATOR of the value you would be paying for. That proves location subsidy repayment (LSR) is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction, like buying a loaf of bread from a baker. Paying rent to a private landowner, by contrast, is like buying a loaf of bread from a thief who stole it from the baker.

<sigh> Yes, because unlike an evil, privileged, parasitic private landowner, they are the providers of the exclusive tenure you are getting in return for your rent payment, as well as of the desirable public services and infrastructure and advantageous opportunities and amenities that make you willing to pay the rent. You just refuse to know the difference between paying a thief for something and paying the exact same amount to its producer, from whom the thief stole it.

 

It is parasitic. It won't let me use what I would otherwise be free to use. Evil and parasitic community, violating my right to liberty.

 

Nope. Unlike the private landowner, it PROVIDES equal value in return for land rent through voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transactions -- as I already proved to you. A parasite, like the private landowner, only takes. You know this.

You would only be free to use it as long as no private landowner forcibly removed your liberty right to use it. The effect of exclusive tenure is the same either way, so why are you pretending it isn't? The difference is that unlike a private landowner, the community ensures we all get COMPENSATION for the loss of individual liberty inherent in exclusive tenure.

Nope. You are just saying anything, now. Landowning violates your right to liberty in any case, but unlike the private landowner, the community is necessary to human existence, and in my proposed system, provides just compensation in return for what its members lose as a result of exclusive tenure. The landowner is not necessary to existence and only takes, providing nothing in return. Therefore it is the private landowner who is indisputably the parasite, not the community. QED.

 

1) all sentient beings take the path of least resistance - because it's a survival tactic. you are grossly misinformed if you think otherwise. but if you doubt it, try finding examples of social mammals exercising productivity on behalf of a different pack, in ways which don't have any survival enhancing benefits for its own pack. good luck.

2) it's not that you get human nature wrong, it's that you ignore it completely. you live in a world of theories predicated on the fantastical notion that feeding people doesn't make them lazy, and the weird notion that people want to help others at their own expense. add in the infantile notion that anyone who owns land is 'evil', and it's all quite Disneyesque.

3) oh yeah, indulging in mental masturbation in your armchair, in your private home, is super hard work. those lazy and selfish devils who work and live like peasants so that many benefit from collective use of land ... those people are terrible. just terrible.

4) In almost all First World democracies, the majority of adults own property. They're your neighbours, your brothers and sisters, your children, your parents, your friends.

 

Given the inequalities in land ownership, this is particularly naive! Its on a par with "yeah but yeah but, a land baron is no different to someone that owns a small back garden behind their trailer"

 

I already proved that is false. Unlike a private landholder, the community is the provider of the secure exclusive tenure you are paying it for, and the source of the advantages (except for the physical qualities nature provides) that make you willing to pay. Just as the baker is not a parasite because he is the source of the bread's value. You know this.

You keep repeating that false claim no matter how many times I prove to you that it is false. It is the EXCLUSIVE PRIVATE LANDHOLDER who won't let you use it. The community doesn't take any hand in the matter until private users want to exclude others. It just ensures that exclusive landholding is fair and respects everyone's rights.

Already proved false. It is the always the exclusive private landholder who deprives others of their liberty to use the land. The community only regulates what PRIVATE landholders do to everyone else in order to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all.

 

You are just objectively wrong. They don't -- that is a fact known to any ethologist -- and they don't because it isn't. Organisms are strengthened by stress.

You are laughable. Show me some credible empirical evidence for your fatuous claim.

Thought not.

That is blatantly moving the goalposts. All I have to do to refute your nonsensical claim is turn on the TV and watch a sports competition. You stand refuted. Search "boxing" on Youtube and watch all those guys taking the path of least resistance.

Your claims are absurd and fatuous.

Garbage with no basis in fact.

You are just makin' $#!+ up again. When did I mention feeding people? I talk about people's RIGHTS, and you know it.

It certainly makes landowners lazy...

You obviously know nothing of the relevant psychological research.

More of your outright false claims. I said owning land is evil, just as owning slaves is evil. That doesn't mean anyone who owns land is evil, any more than anyone who owns a slave is evil. Jefferson owned slaves, but he opposed slavery. That is what made him not evil. Evil more accurately describes those who contrive disingenuous justifications for landowning and slave owning. Like you.

Thinking clearly, deeply and honestly is super hard work, which is probably why you don't do it, and try to dismiss it as mental masturbation.

<yawn> Oh, you mean all those people following the path of least resistance?

Thanks for proving yourself wrong again.

If you mean land, that is false, as I have proved.

Just as slave owners were.

GET IT?????

 

So how many people are in this community you say doesn't violate my rights to liberty?

 

What inequalities? We're all free to own as much or as little as we see fit.

Give me one example of a law or institutional barrier to land purchase in the democratic West, and I'm happy to stand corrected.

 

Are you taking the mike? A land baron is akin to a garden in a trailer park? Its a choice? No one is that naive!

 

I said NOTHING except: we're all free to purchase as much or as little land as we see fit to own. You cannot refute that, because you know it's true. There are literally zero legal or institutional impediments to land acquisition, in our first world capitalist democracies.

Learn the difference between freedom to choose, and the outcome of choices. Freedom to choose leaves the outcome to the individual (else how could it be called 'freedom'?).

 

Depends where you live. At the largest scale, it is the citizenry of a democratic sovereign nation whose government exists to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all. You are aware of the fact that it is landowners who violate your rights to liberty, not the community which just administers exclusive tenure to make it less egregious.