The problem of Capitalism

You're referring to the state, I assume?

 

Nope. Never happened, and you know it.

True: it has worked everywhere it has ever been tried, to the extent that it has been tried. It has created numerous economic miracles, including right in front of your eyes, in China.

ROTFL!!! It is landowning that has been proved contrary to human nature, as it has only existed for thousands of years, whereas human nature has been molded over millions of years when no one owned land. You are destroyed. Again.

 

No, you extracted a 40-year period when stocks wildly outperformed bonds. I just took the most recent 20 years.

See above. Too bad you are incapable of experiencing embarrassment.

So you admit you are wrong: prices do not move to equalize returns.

<yawn> As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

Huh? They are foodless and medical care-less because they have to pay landowners full market value just for permission to earn food and medical care. Duh.

See how easily I always demolish and humiliate you?

 

But that is just use, not ownership. The old lady doesn't own the seat she sits on. Why is it so hard for you to get such obvious facts into your head?

You haven't answered that one yet. How did the original appropriators of land as private property remove everyone else's liberty rights to use it without killing them?

 

No, no one has ever created land, and you know it. You are just spewing obvious absurdities because you can't think of anything else to say.

No, you are obviously incapable of experiencing embarrassment, no matter how much you humiliate yourself.

 

Garbage. Large numbers are still poor, as they have no legal right to use land.

Nope. All land in China is still publicly owned. Capitalism by definition requires private ownership of land and capital. You know this, as I have explained it to you, very clearly and patiently, numerous times.

Which they did by using, even though very imperfectly, the geoist system of private ownership of producer goods and public ownership of land.

How much ignorance can fit in one man's head?

Only an apologist for privilege would miss the fact that all land in China is still publicly owned.

 

Many people do. It's better than being forcibly starved to death by landowners.

Nope. That's how our ancestors survived for millions of years.

Landowners create homelessness, nobody else.

 

Everyone does. How did you remove their rights to liberty, hmmmmmm?

There is no other way to get exclusive tenure. And yes, taking land by force generally does cost both the taker and the taken.

 

But you of course know that your georgist bullshit has been refuted. It’s been shown to beworkable, and been shown to be contrary to thousands of years of human nature. That you think modern humans were around millions of years ago shows how detached from reality you still are.

 

We call that system, "feudalism." It's not very nice, and the millions can't hold the land for long when someone stronger wants possession and use of their land. Why do you refuse to know all such facts?

Why do you always falsely claim that I advocate state ownership of land, when you know I have stated many times that no one can rightly own land, but the state administers its possession and use in any case? The difference is not in the state's role as sovereign authority over the land, but only in the terms the state requires of landholders in return for secure, exclusive tenure. I think landholders should voluntarily pay the free market price for what they are taking, same as they would voluntarily pay the free market price when taking a loaf of bread home from a bakery. You think they should continue to be entitled to take the bread from the bakery without paying for it. Simple.

 

No. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. I have stated many times that land cannot rightly be owned, but the state administers its possession and use in any case. You know this.

No, it is not. All land in Hong Kong has been state owned for over 160 years, and far from being communist, it has been one of the freest and most prosperous places on earth. So you are just objectively wrong. OBJECTIVELY. The only question is, are you willing to learn anything from your error?

 

I know it has not.

Correct; and it has always worked beautifully, to the extent that it has been tried.

No. Human nature did not suddenly change a few thousand years ago when greedy, evil parasites first realized that if they could just get ownership of the land, they would be able to take everything from everyone else.

Modern humans have been around for ~100Ky-200Ky, and evolved over millions of years before that. Landowning has been around for at most 5% of that time. Landowning is therefore indisputably foreign to human nature.

 

But you of course know that your georgist bullshit has been refuted. It’s been shown to be unworkable, and been shown to be contrary to thousands of years of human nature. That you think modern humans were around millions of years ago shows how detached from reality you still are. Humans have been killing each other over the ownership of land for tens of thousands of years.

 

Why can't you ever quote such a refutation, hmmmmm?

Very.

No, human nature didn't suddenly reverse itself a few thousand years ago when greedy, evil parasites figured out that if they could just get ownership of the land, they could take everything from everyone else.

 

No. Ownership of land dates to no more than a few thousand years ago, with the emergence of settled agriculture, substantial fixed improvements, and the state. Forcible, animal possession is not ownership, and neither is tribal territoriality.

 

Why would I need to? You’re perfectly aware your bullshit has been refuted. All I need to do is keep reminding you.

 

Yes

 

Shall I adjudicate?

I pronounce you the loser, in the debate with bringiton.

 

Replace the word 'ownership' with 'possession' in that sentence.

And then consider, must we - of the species homo sapiens - remain subject to the "law of the jungle" forever?

 

Obviously not, we did not remain subject to the "law of the jungle". We replaced the word possession with ownership.

 

But in both cases, we were - and still are - subject to instinctive behaviours arising from the "law of the jungle".

eg under Chapter XII of the UN Charter: possession of territory by force is inadmissible, we read:

“2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”

https://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/69-71/69-71_12.pdf

Now of course in the above case, possession of land is related to possession of culture, but nevertheless your statement that
"we did not remain subject to the "law of the jungle"" is proved incorrect, by the very necessity to create such "equal rights" where such rights don't exist in nature and where "might is right".

The entire UN project is about exactly that: an attempt to replace instinctive (natural) "law of the jungle" with rule of law as conceived by 'self-aware' homo sapiens, for the express purpose of

"strengthening universal peace.”​

​

​

 

Ownership has two definitions. One personal and the other public.

For instance - no one "owns the White House". A PotUS lives and works there for four years only, repeatedly only twice. And that is not the only example I could cite.

The White House is public-property like a great many other physical entities ...

 

Which has no relevance to reality. His argument remains refuted.

 

No need to replace it. What I posted was perfectly correct.