Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Why constantly make such false, absurd, and disingenuous claims? Why try to perpetrate such disgraceful, despicable, and disingenuous fallacies on your readers as claiming I am "afraid" to do what I JUST DID?

The quote I posted from Jefferson ALREADY SAID how he proved you wrong. Just frickin' READ it, OK?

<yawn> What does your desperate, almost sexual need to make false claims that I am afraid teach you?

 

No, that's again just flat false as a matter of objective physical fact. Others never respected it before the advent of settled agriculture, substantial fixed improvements, and government issuance of titles. They might have been kept off by force of violent, coercive, physical aggression, but that is not the same as respecting a property right.

 

Such as iron or gold or any other sort of atom.

Yes, I get it. We have no right to deprive others of their liberty to access what nature created: atoms.

 

either way life evolved with animals requiring private land for survival. If, for example, you catch a squirrel they tell you take it five miles away or it will come back to its private property. The also tell you it will almost certainly die anyway if in a weakened disoriented state it tries to kill others to acquire new property on which to survive.
Human natural law recognizes this process and provides for the peaceful ownership of the private property we need for survival.

And this is not the mention that private property makes human wealth explode 1000 fold because it is the very best form of loan collateral on which to borrow money for homes business and education. Why does it work so well? Because nothing will make each human being on earth work harder than the need to save and expand his private property.

 

I disagree with your answer to the words emboldened in the quote lacking a source above.

A legal claim of ownership to land others may want to use does NOT deprive them from exercising their rights to liberty. They remain at liberty to make an acceptable offer to purchase the land from the current owner or remunerate the owner in some way agreeable to allow them use of the land.

 

Money is widely available all over the world?

2 years ago Oxfam said c.80 people owned as much wealth as the bottom 50%. Latest figure is 10(!) people possess that amount of wealth. And you want these ten to be lending money - at interest - to the poorest 50%?

As to "printing money", you are refusing to grasp the concept as I have presented it, not surprising from someone who is mesmerised by the obsolete orthodoxy of Econ.101, which is itself widely disputed by an increasing number of economics students, as I pointed out in a previous post

Those who can see past the self-interested, backward looking orthodoxy of Econ.101. know that socially useful work, performed by labour not employed by the private sector, ought to be funded by public sector money printing, consistent with sustainable use of the actual resources available, so that the chronic un-under/employment characteristic of today's economy can be eliminated.

Evidence that it's needed? Well, eg, Trump wants to resurrect an obsolete coal industry, in a desperate attempt to reverse job redundancy in that industry.

BTW, your oft repeated statement that China "adopted 'capitalism' and eliminated 40% of global poverty
needs to completed with the words "and destroyed first world manufacturing, resulting in political stalemate and dysfunction in the developed world".
(eg latest figures show the election turnout in France at record low levels, with people interviewed by media - including casualties of the rust-belt phenomenon, among others - saying "politicians do nothing for the people, nothing changes no matter who we elect, they are only in it to collect their own substantial salaries".

Absurdity? Those interviewees have certainly expressed their views on the present 'econ101-driven' global economy.







.

 

No, that's flat, outright false as a matter of objective physical fact. You're just factually wrong. There are only a handful of territorial species, even fewer where territory is held privately, by individuals, and until a few thousand years ago, homo sapiens was not one of them. I'm not sure there is any clearer, simpler way to explain that to you.

No, that's false, squirrels do not have private property, your claims are absurd. Why are you repeating such false, absurd, and disingenuous claims over and over again when I have already proved them false multiple times?

No, that's also objectively false. Property can't be acquired by fighting, that's a contradiction in terms. What is acquired by fighting is mere brute, forcible possession, not property; you know that squirrels cannot own property, why are you pretending so absurdly that they can?

Garbage. No human being ever held land as a private individual until a few thousand years ago, after the advent of settled agriculture and substantial fixed improvements, and tribal territory had to be held by force, and was therefore not property. You are just wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong.

Which does not include land, as people survived just fine for millions of years without owning land.

Because private property in the products of labor gets the incentives right. Private property in land gets the incentives wrong. That is why Pakistan (ruthlessly enforced private ownership of land) is desperately poor, and will stay that way, while Hong Kong (no private ownership of land) is rich, and getting richer.

You are just wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong.

ROTFL! I guess that explains why the small farmers who go into debt in Pakistan, India, etc. often end up losing their land and committing suicide...

The only reason anyone needs to take out a loan in the first place is that their rightful earned wages, the value they have produced by their labor, has been taken from them by force and given to landowners and other greedy, privileged parasites.

It doesn't. See Pakistan. And the Philippines, and Guatemala, Bangladesh, etc.

Garbage. People will work themselves to the bone to feed their children, even when they are not allowed to keep, let alone expand, the private property they earn by their labor.

 

Yes, it most certainly and indisputably does. Watch:

I.e., in EXACTLY the same way that slaves were "at liberty" to purchase their rights to liberty from their owners.

Sorry, pal, but being "at liberty" to pay the greedy, evil parasite who owns your right to liberty for it is not the same as actually HAVING a right to liberty.

GET IT????

 

Where nature put them. I already proved you wrong on this point, remember? You are ALREADY FREE to take as many gold atoms as you wish from where nature put them (subject to landowners' extortion demands, of course). So when someone else removes gold atoms from nature and makes them valuable by their labor, they are not depriving you of anything you would otherwise have, any more than by breathing, they deprive you of air. Atoms are abundant and interchangeable, so you can't claim to be deprived of them. Land is scarce and each parcel is unique, so landowners DO deprive others of it.

YOU KNOW THIS.

But thank you for making the disingenuous nature of your "argument" so obvious to readers.

Nature only created them WHERE it created them. Remove them, and they are no longer what nature created. And you are not deprived of anything if you suffer no deprivation.

YOU KNOW THIS.

 

Why?

 

'cause reasons.

YOU KNOW THIS.

 

Lol! You gave me a good chuckle.

 

What's it with the playground ending

Good. I'll bet you $10,000. Deal?

 

Interesting how facts can be put to use/misuse.

Like most anything of value a person might wish to acquire, it requires some effort on the part of individuals to acquire it.

According to Forbes (2017) there are currently 2,043 billionaires in the world today, an increase of 233 from 2016, and their total worth is claimed to be about $7.7 billion.
You need to go down the list quite a ways to find the first one who is involved primarily in banking (making loans), but the vast majority on the list have NOT become billionaires as a result of loaning money but either investing wisely or beginning a business creating jobs and a large consumer base.
Note that Bill Gates tops the list with a wealth of $88.9 billion, and a day ago showed an increase of $584 million, but today suffered a loss of $427 million. In fact 7 of the top 10 wealthiest suffered a loss of wealth today, while 1 had a small gain and the remaining 2 were unchanged. Most all of the billionaires wealth is on paper and would diminish greatly if they were to attempt to convert it into cash all at once.

Can you print money and make it more valuable? Or keep its value constant in the process?

While I didn't care to spend time to go back and look for what it is you find disagreeable about Econ 101, and without defining what you consider to be 'socially useful work', I would agree that any and all public sector work found necessary and agreeable to by the majority of people in their respective societies, local, State, and Federal should be funded by public sector spending for which the taxpayers agree to be taxed adequate to fund at the local, State or Federal level of government.

I don't see the coal industry as obsolete or redundant, if it were who would coal be sold to? Trump simply is trying to put people back to work, and if there is a market for coal and American workers can produce it for the market to be sold they can earn an income.

It's a highly competitive world today, perhaps we can inflate our way to prosperity?
With China's highest minimum wage today of about $1.88 an hour perhaps a $15 or $20 an hour minimum wage in the U.S. would bring back manufacturing?

"politicians do nothing for the people, nothing changes no matter who we elect, they are only in it to collect their own substantial salaries". I seem to have missed that in Econ 101, perhaps its been changed from when I went to school?

 

RING MY BELL

Pass that one by me again. As a professor of Economics I have a vested interest in your notion that seems to be indicating the wholesale refutal of the Supply/Demand Model upon which economics is firmly based.

You think that GDP does not equal Consumption + Investment + Government Spending?

Moreover, what (ever) is it that you mean about "printing money". This?:

MY POINT1

Since the dawn of Modern Times "printing money" has been the conventional way of exiting recessions/depression. Since the early 1930s, an English economist (by the name of John Maynard Keynes) convinced Roosevelt in the midst of the Great Depression to do the opposite of what he had been doing. That is, cutting drastically government expenditures (and getting nowhere with that policy.)

In fact, in his effort to overcome the ravages of the Great Depression, though Roosevelt did a lot of spending (particularly in his Alphabet Agencies) finally, he mitigated only somewhat the ravages of the depression.

It took the massive spending of WW2 (thank you, Adolph!) to finally end the Great Depression. The aftermath of which was enormous government spending throughout the postwar years. DoD-spending still consumes more than half of ALL GOVERNMENT DISCRETIONARY SPENDING. (Don't believe that? See here.)

DoD-spending is still the BigBusiness Boondoggle it has always been. It supposedly "creates jobs", which means nothing. The Mafia created jobs as well. What it does not do is create "meaningfully long-term jobs".

MY POINT 2

The preferential choice of economic policy - its fundamental criteria - is this, "Does it work to make work?" Stimulus Spending does just that. As when Dubya handed Obama (in 2008/9 the worst unemployment rate since 1983 (from the BLS):

The second parameter is, "Stimulus Spending makes work where?" Spending money is the easy part, finding where effectively to spend it is the hard part.

And I submit that the US is at that very same crossroads once again. Donald Dork thinks his back-side breakfast-cereal catch-phrase of Making America Great Again is going to be a snap. He hasn't the foggiest notion of how to do it.

So, like all PotUSs before him, he will resort to Stimulus Spending. Just like him, plenty of his rich buddies have made their fortunes on Crazy Taxation Boondoggles, and now he wants the National Budget to "start spending to create jobs"?

Yeah, all America needs is more roads.

My point is that what Americans need long-term are the Educational Credentials that a presently very costly post-secondary degree allows them. And, with the actual astronomically high-cost of said degree, that is not for everybody. (Given the statistics, clearly less than half of all present high-school students will never ever obtain the necessary credentials afforded by a post-secondary degree.)

Bernie & Hillary were right. Back in the early 20th century America made the difficult (at the time) decision to introduce mandatory primary/secondary education. Now, today, the US must implement not mandatory but free Post-secondary Education (vocational, 2&4-year at state-institutions of higher learning) to all who need it to guaranty the future of "a good job at a decent payscale".

When that happens (funded out of nationally funded expenditures obtained by lowering the massively high DoD-expenditures), please ring my bell ...

 

Moreover, we must guaranty them the ability of access. Just because a select group CAN PAY MORE does not mean they deserve to have more ...

From all according to their ability, to all according to their needs. (Someone once wrote. The debate is about "How?" ...)

 

THE INFORMATION AGE

"Econ 101" says nothing about a "driven global economy". It simply describes Supply 'n Demand - which, yes, "drives" economies. But makes no issue of what is right and wrong, and simply assumes a market-economy functions on capital.

How the global economy should work is a matter of interpretation. And most of the misgivings about it presently are because too many people in too many countries have lost their jobs (2008/2014) due to an unavoidable Age Change - from the previous Industrial Age to the newly arriving Information Age.

Just as the Industrial Age pulled people off the farms and into cities (thus enlarging them), it also became apparent that our workers needed primary and secondary education to do their jobs. (Reading and writing became absolute necessities.) Which the state was required to supply.

The Information Age also has its "transformational challenges". Which is why I keep harping about Bernie's idea to have free or nearly-free Tertiary Education sponsored by the Federal government to provide said degrees at state colleges throughout the country. (With perhaps some state colleges specializing in certain subjects because they have the unique credentials to do so.)

MY POINT?

Iow, we are very, very wrong to be spending so large a percentage of Discretionary Spending on the DoD. (See here.) Which is blindly stoopid, to say the least. The money can be spent better preparing our children and funding catch-up of others in the Information Age that is upon us ...

 

Because that's what you would otherwise be at liberty to use (i.e., if landowners did not deprive you of your liberty to do so). But without others' labor having made its products more valuable than what nature provided, you would NOT be at liberty to use what has been removed from where nature put it: it's not there any more.

YOU KNOW THIS.

 

In the Eastern carpenter bee, Xylocopa Virginica, both sexes have glands that evolved for marking the nest. Males, although they have the gland, are unable to produce the marking substance. Female secrete it near the nest site entrance to establish their territory.[15]

 

Whereas trolls mark their territory with bull$#!+...?

 

Territoriality has been observed to exist among certain animal species like birds, insects, mammals and vertebrates. Therefore, a parallel with man has had to be established because territoriality has been seen to exist in man; both as an individual and a group.

The major characteristic of territoriality as observed by comparative psychologists like Lorenz, Tinbergen, and ethnologists like Eibl-Ebesfeldt, is that an animal must be aggressive towards conspecifics. Through studies and observations, the authors have come to the conclusion that the territorial behavior possesses several functions in the evolution and preservation of species

http://www.hungerforculture.com/?page_id=1330

 

Hello and welcome to another edition of "Mild Kingdom." This week, we've taken our cameras out to capture one of the oddest and oldest rituals of the animal world: territoriality.

Here we see a dog claiming a fire hydrant. And here's a cat rubbing its owner's leg. Now let's look at some footage of one of nature's most aggressively proprietary creatures. . . .

We see it honking as someone gets into its lane. Now we see it scatter a pile of personal items on the next train seat. This beast has also been known to become enraged when its mate rolls over onto its sleeping s"It's very natural to do this," explains psychologist Joyce Brothers. "You see it when somebody puts their feet up on a desk or a leg over a chair at a theater. Almost every organism somehow has to mark its territory. We're forever playing these games."

 

MARKING YOUR TERRITORY

Sometimes people erect actual boundaries to stake claim to their personal space. According to communication professor Mark L. Knapp and social psychologist Judith A. Hall, this is a popular response to encroachments (or predicted encroachments) of our territory. Leaving an "occupied" sign on an airplane seat, draping a coat over the back of a chair in a restaurant, arranging a towel and sunscreen on a hotel poolside lounge, or spreading books at a library desk indicate this place is mine, and I will be returning to claim it--so keep off! In fact, most people get pretty peeved if someone deigns to move their markers. “Hey, I was here first!”

People often mark where their territory begins or ends. A fence may separate one yard from that of a neighbor, just as painted lines demarcates parking spaces, and the bedroom door clearly delineates that area from the rest of the residence. You may also formally mark your territory with your name or a representative symbol such as a club's emblem or your initials. "This room belongs to . . ." is a popular sign for those who need to make it clear that trespassing will not be tolerated.

 

the playwright turned anthropologist, proposed the notion of human territorial aggression in "The Territorial Imperative," published in the 1960s. The controversial best-seller argued that the territorial instincts of animals apply equally to man. The book followed Mr. Ardrey's "African Genesis," a look at the evolution of human behavior, which also ignited an intellectual firestorm.
Although some scientists have criticized Mr. Ardrey's methods, and new discoveries have superseded some of his conclusions, the territorial imperative remains a compelling premise — an avenue for possible understanding of the suffering that now racks the Balkans.


wrote Mr. Ardrey, who died in 1980, "is as much a territorial animal as is a mockingbird singing in the clear California night. We act as we do for reasons of our evolutionary past, not our cultural present, and our behavior is as much a mark of our species as is the shape of a human thigh bone or the configuration of nerves in a corner of the human brain.

"If we defend the title to our land or the sovereignty of our country, we do it for reasons no different, no less innate, no less ineradicable, than do lower animals."

The principle of the territorial imperative applied to Kosovo may help to explain, though not excuse, the extreme actions of Slobodan Milosevic and his followers.

For Mr. Milosevic and many other Serbs, Kosovo is imbued with such significance that it unleashes aggressive territorial instincts. The province is regarded as the Serbian heartland. The Serbs lost their independence in Kosovo to the Turks in 1389. By the time Serbia recaptured the region from Turkey in 1913, the ethnic Albanians were overwhelmingly dominant, making up 90 percent of the population. The Serbs still believed that Kosovo did not belong to them.

In his speeches, Mr. Milosevic recalls Kosovo's glorious medieval years under Serbian rule in an effort to summon his followers' patriotism. His attempts to rouse the population conforms to Mr. Ardrey's contention that the territorial imperative stirs a group — whether animal or human — to rally together in defense of what they believe is their rightful land.

"What we call patriotism," Mr. Ardrey wrote, "is a calculable force which, released by a predictable situation, will animate man in a manner no different from other territorial species."

=