The problem of Capitalism

It does not matter how many times you repeat it. Comparing owning land to owning a human is retarded. You’ve been shown how and why georgism does not and can not ever work. It’s a completely failed ideology.

 

I didn't think I was saying anything "new". I was just pointing out something "overlooked".

 

And your reply to my post #942? Is this the conservative's idea of debating, by ignoring the debate when the going gets tough?

That debate repeated here:

-------------

james M said: "America is based on private property"

My observation:

.....whether you can afford to buy it or not.....

James said: and natural rights, one of which is to own land

My observation: An erroneous mixing of concepts.

1. So-called 'natural rights' (a misnomer) exist only in human consciousness/self-awareness, from which emanates a sense of 'justice'.

eg the UNUDHR is an aspirational statement of rights based on this 'sense' of justice, as opposed to the self-interested survival instincts of individuals, which always lead to conflict/war if left ungoverned (aka anarchy) ie without rule of law, represented by the scales of justice.

2. Rights do not exist in the animal kingdom, in which creatures are wholly directed by the survival instinct honed over eons of evolution.

3. Animals - and primitive humans (eg in tribal conflict) - may instinctively fight to POSSESS land (as opposed to 'owning' it) as ordained by the instinctive predatory competition for vital resources that we observe in the natural world.

4. The Right to own land is merely a political/philosophical concept not necessary for survival, ie, one can choose to own land, or to rent it in the form of housing (though this latter option is not always a matter of choice, and no doubt the attraction of private property ownership is in part founded in ancient unconscious instincts re possession of land).

Universal Rights to Life, Liberty and Security are basic to survival itself. Such Rights are proposed by a conscious and aware homo sapiens wanting to escape - as a species - from the (instinctive) preordained, anarchic "law of the jungle".
(end of post 942).
---------------

In short: I have explained why humans might be attracted to private ownership of land, whether they need to own it or not (as a matter of survival): unlike animals, which (in many species) *do* instinctively mark out territory as their own - and will fight off intruders.

That's the law of the jungle. That's the world you are foisting onto humans. Hence Conservatism's barely concealed cultural supremacism.

 

I have explained (in #1028 above) why humans might be attracted to private ownership of land, whether they need to own it or not (as a matter of survival): unlike animals, which (in many species) *do* instinctively mark out territory as their own - and will fight off intruders.

That's the law of the jungle. That's the world you are foisting onto humans. Hence Conservatism's barely concealed cultural supremacism.

The reason why "georgism can not ever work" is the unconscious effect of ancient survival instincts on human behaviour. As bringiton says, the solution to that problem is increasing awareness through universal education.

Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe. HG Wells.

 

Wow, anti-establishment thread that defines established subjective principles as the basis cause of problems of the capitalistic principle.

I have to say almost 40 pages of comments trying to establish humans rights (subjectively) as measure of equality in capitalism while trying to establish corruption of regulation to curtail the moral aspects of the protagonists within to meet personal expectations.

Well, just as an observer, I have to point out. To say rights, liberty and justice are the method of concept of an amoral principle( if you can consider a mechanism as having morals), you have to establish WHAT is the quality of rights and liberty and justice considering the development and governance of all.

As for suggesting land or ownership of any kind is considered a measure of capitalistic intent…

 

The reason it has never worked is the reason communism has never worked. People strive to improve themselves. People are competitive by nature. Land has ALWAYS been owned, for the entirety of human history. Nobody has a right to the property of others. I don’t have a right to come to your house and sleep on your couch. You don’t have a right to use the land that I own.

 

We Taxpayers tire of funding this filth:

Capitalism-bashing prof now has a new punching bag: ‘White men.’

Remember, when taxpayers tire of funding this sort of thing, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

 

I just realized how silly this question is. Normally I wouldn't ask it in the first place.

 

Land is not a product, and would exist without any landowner "providing" it; therefore what makes the land beneficial comes from it's natural qualities and/or external factors provided by the government and the community, as CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED BY VACANT LOTS. Land value CLEARLY does not come from anything the landowner, in his role as the landowner, "provides":

14 acres listed at $14,000,000

https://www.point2homes.com/US/Vaca...entura-County/0000-Maricopa-Hwy/71784568.html

20 acres listed at $12,000

https://www.point2homes.com/US/Vaca...-address-available/73206538.html#lg=1&slide=0

WHAT does the first landowner "provide" that the second landowner doesn't "provide" to deserve the additional $10,000,000? That said, what does the second landowner "provide" to even deserve $10,000? Why is the landowner the one getting paid for what government and the community provide?

If there was a building on those lots that wouldn't change the FACT that the land value portion of any payment does not come from any "contribution" attributable to the landowner. All the landowner does is use his exclusionary privilege to deny others access to natural and/or societal benefits, unless they pay him for doing absolutely nothing; whether at sale or rental.

"Roads are made, streets are made, railway services are improved, electric light turns night into day, electric trams glide swiftly to and fro, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains - and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people. Many of the most important are effected at the cost of the municipality and of the ratepayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is sensibly enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare; he contributes nothing even to the process from which his own enrichment is derived." - Winston Churchill

You have shown that you provide links that don't support your claims

You have shown that you don't/cannot read the content of your own links

You deny the content of official government sources describing to you the system of land tenure in Hong Kong.

You claim, again, and again, and again, that you have "proven" us wrong, but are incapable of ever pointing out where.

You don't DARE touch bringiton's scenarios which clearly, simply, eloquently and concisely demonstrate the parallels between slavery and ownership of land or other natural resources. Are you going to work for MASSA or are you going to die of thirst, rahl?

You have NEVER, and will NEVER, show or demonstrate that requiring the landowner to pay for what he's taking from the community doesn't work.

Look at all these Nobel laureates holding "batshit crazy" ideas, rahl. I don't think they're the ones who have "batshit crazy" idea, rahl.

"Our ideal society finds it essential to put a rent on land as a way of maximizing the total consumption available to the society. ...Pure land rent is in the nature of a 'surplus' which can be taxed heavily without distorting production incentives or efficiency. A land value tax can be called 'the useful tax on measured land surplus'." - Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate

"In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago." - Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate

"It is important that the rent of land be retained as a source of government revenue. Some persons who could make excellent use of land would be unable to raise money for the purchase price. Collecting rent annually provides access to land for persons with limited access to credit.” - Franco Modigliani, Nobel laureate

"The user[owner] of land should not be allowed to acquire rights of indefinite duration for single payments. For efficiency, for adequate revenue and for justice, every user[owner] of land should be required to make an annual payment to the local government equal to the current rental value of the land that he or she prevents others from using." - Robert Solow, Nobel laureate

"While the governments of developed nations with market economies collect some of the rent of land, they do not collect nearly as much as they could, and they therefore make unnecessarily great use of taxes that impede their economies — taxes on such things as incomes, sales, and the value of capital goods." - William Vickrey, Nobel laureate

"The main, underlying idea of Henry George is the taxation of land and other natural resources. At the time, people thought, "not really that too," but what was underlying his ideas is rent associated with things that are inelastically supplied, which are land and natural resources. And using natural resource extraction and using land rents as the basis of taxation is an argument that I think makes an awful lot of sense because it is a non-distortionary source of income and wealth." - Joseph Stieglitz, Nobel laureate

 

Massa's property rights to the natural spring are holy and should be respected. Therefore I think Longshot should buy his own natural spring if he doesn't like the voluntary working arrangement offered to him. There are lots of natural springs in this world. Easy.

 

Have you been? Do you know that there are people living in cages, and people living in mansions?

 

I can't justify tax payers funding 'arts grants', but there it is.

 

The question is wrong. What does the landowner GAIN, that the second landowner does not. And if you don't know the answer to that question, you need to learn about the property market.

But if you insist on the idea of landowners 'providing', then the first is providing subdivided blocks to what is evidently an in demand housing market. The second is not.

 

No, that is NOT why they are buying it. It's land banking, for future profit.

 

Great .. and what is all of that learning doing to actually give people access to land?

I'm not operating on a societal scale. I'm doing what I can, with what is.

The treadmill is where change happens. The "thought" is just the thing that gets you onto the treadmill.

Right. You've made your choices in life .. and those choices just happen to reinforce the very thing you say you're opposed to.

 

Great .. and what is all of that learning doing to actually give people access to land?

I'm not operating on a societal scale. I'm doing what I can, with what is.

The treadmill is where change happens. The "thought" is just the thing that gets you onto the treadmill.

Right. You've made your choices in life .. and those choices just happen to reinforce the very thing you say you're opposed to.

 

And who the hell is 'the community' anyway? As far as I'm aware, a community consists of 'greedy' land grabbers, paupers, and everything in between. Does our friend think the land grabbers aren't going to simply buy out the paupers, just as they do now? Being 'the community', they will have that right .. according to his philosophy.

 

You know we're not laughing with you .. dontcha?

 

The point was, that if being available for purchase in the market justified property rights in whatever is bought, then chattel slaves would be morally justifiable property if available. So, there have to be other factors at play that make property rights morally valid; and buying can merely be considered one of the many ways of obtaining ownership of whatever is considered property. This is not difficult. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of Longshot's position. Don't you think the basis for property rights should be logically consistent as very as morally justifiable?

 

There is a reason I put the "provide" in quotation marks. Because the landowner DOESN'T PROVIDE WHAT HE'S CHARGING FOR. If automakers didn't make cars, there wouldn't be cars. If landowners didn't make land, and they don't, the land would still be there. This is not difficult. The landowner merely charges for what is provided by the government, the community, and nature. That's all he does. That's his sole "contribution".

 

auto manufacturer merely charges for cars that's his sole contribution. and??????

 

dear we don't consider people property. 1+1=2

 

why not tell us exactly what debate was ignored??? Afraid to try??

 

dear, landowner does not take from the community he buys from a purchaser.

 

Of course if that was true we'd all want to be landowners so as to be enriched for doing nothing. Sounds like the ultimate good investment. In reality, its a gamble like any investment. 1+1=2