The problem of Capitalism

Nope. Wrong. Those who produced it -- or who pay everyone else just compensation for depriving them of what no one produced -- deserve it. See? You have no facts or logic to offer, so you have to just make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written.

 

I know. You want to keep what you have that was taken from everyone else by force.

 

When the talk is evil, I certainly condemn those who walk it. Duh.

 

I don't believe sharing or charity is a workable solution to injustice, sorry, and when I have less than I deserve, of course I ask for more.

I advocate justice. You hate justice. Simple.

 

I indeed call anyone greedy who shows excessive, rapacious desire for more than they need or deserve, because that is what greed is by definition.

 

It only got to be "their" land by violence in the first place, so stop trying to pretend that I am the one seeking to initiate violence. The violence has already been initiated and committed against me and everyone else by landowners (or rather government operating on their behalf).

 

It is the landowner who is greedy, and I will thank you to remember it. In fact, the greed of the welfare chiseler for unearned wealth is to the greed of the landowner as the brightness of the moon is to the brightness of the sun.

 

I don't think I need to add a thing to this. It sums up exactly what I've been saying about your authenticity, all along.

 

And of course, the people you love (and perhaps yourself also) who own land are the good guys, right? Not greedy at all .. even though they're not even sharing that land? It's OTHER land owners who are greedy, because you don't know them. Even those who actually share their land (and its benefits) with others.

Good god man, you make this far too easy.

 

Wages are yours to do with what you will. Waste it on living large (then complain when you have no land), or save and become a landowner. Which will YOU choose?

You've lost no such thing. There are ZERO legal impediments to your becoming a landowner. YOU are the only thing standing in your way.

 

Plenty. I teach economics. This is an Economics Forum, isn't it?

You should take a course in it one day and come back ...

 

There is nothing in that statement than cannot bear correcting like putting Upper-income Tax Rates back to where they were before JFK started taking them down, and Ronald Raygun finished the job of Rewarding Wealth.

See the history of upper-income taxation here:


We should put them back up to the 94% range at the income-level of 3/4/5 megabucks per year - BUT with the added proviso that Inheritance Taxation be set around 75% of the total. And should they see that chop coming and assure the young'uns their wealth by gifting them, then put a high-end tax on that as well.

It is low upper-income taxation that has bred the excessive Income Disparity that America has today. But, who cares, the Unemployment is back down. So, no problemo?

Oh no, the problem is still there - just hiding under a blanket. Watts-Riots2 WILL HAPPEN again - it's just a matter of time.

It will remind us that the poor are still there and poorer-than-ever ...

PS: I have nothing against richness per se. I have a great deal against amassing wealth for no reason (except a name-mention in the New York Times now and then) when so many fellow Americans (17 million of them) are eking out an existence below the Poverty Threshold ($24K a year income for a family of four).
PPS: That's one helluva time-bomb that will indeed go off one day.

 

So instead of actually reducing the 'injustice' by sharing, you just keep spouting your truth and demanding Govt does does the work for you.

PS: Since we both know that's never going to happen in a large multicultural democracy, I'll take this as just today's delivery of guilt. It excuses you from having to get your hands dirty, while giving the impression that you care.

 

You mean like exclusive use of property? We definitely agree on that. Good to know you're coming around

 

No it doesn't. I've never pretended to be more interested in sharing and caring than in liberty and justice. Sharing and caring are not a solution for oppression and injustice. They are just a band-aid to mask the symptoms and give the evil an excuse to blame the victims of injustice for not sharing and caring enough. Despicable.

 

Nope. They're just participating in evil in self-defense. Can't blame people for that. What I CAN blame people for is DEFENDING, RATIONALIZING and JUSTIFYING evil.

Jefferson owned slaves, but he did not try to justify slavery. See the difference?

People are naturally greedy. But I have informed you of the definition of greed, and it has nothing to do with not sharing. Sharing is charity, not justice. Greed is entirely defined by excessive desire for more than one needs or deserves.

Nope. Wrong. Couldn't matter less. If you deserve $5K but you take $50K by owning land, sharing $10K of what you took with others doesn't make you not greedy. It just means you are trying to salve your guilty conscience.

<yawn> You can say that when you have made an argument I haven't demolished.

 

Except the part I have to pay in taxes to subsidize greedy, privileged parasites like landowners, and the part I have to pay directly to landowners for permission to access economic opportunity and the desirable public services and infrastructure my taxes just paid for.

You forgot about the bulk of my wages being forcibly taken by government to give to the privileged and by the privileged to keep for themselves.

I most certainly have. Your disingenuous denials of self-evident and indisputable facts are disgraceful.

I already proved that is false. One must pay a landowner full market value for permission to become a landowner. Your claims are just objectively false.

That is nothing but evil, blame-the-victim filth.

 

No you didn't. You didn't even try.

Everybody has a right to take property that consists of their rights from anyone who claims to own those rights.

Thank you for reassuring me by your pathetic, repulsive behavior that I am indeed right and you are wrong.

 

That would not reduce the injustice. It would only redistribute it.

Holding government to account and getting it to perform its rightful function of securing and reconciling the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty and property in the fruits of their labor is one of the highest, noblest, and most worthy pursuits a human being can follow. The difference between good government and bad accounts for almost all the difference in people's actual conditions of life.

One way or another, it is.

I'm not the one trying to assuage guilt by "sharing and caring" instead of fighting tyranny and injustice. You are.

 

Are you coming around to my advocacy of rightful property in the products of one's labor? Or are you still touting wrongful property in other people's rights to liberty?

 

When people don't have access to land, what is the solution? Access to land. Argue that at your peril.

You've found a neat trick to avoiding the work of sharing, I'll grant you that. As long as you keep calling it a search for 'justice' you're released from personal responsibility. It's like saying "I wish everyone was kinder", while remaining an asshat. But .... we can still see you.

 

Paddle faster!

 

We all have to pay taxes. And we still become landowners.

The taxes we pay fund the freedoms and privileges you enjoy, and clearly take for granted. The freedoms which allow you to be a complainer, rather than a doer.

Yes, that's called trade. In our rich First World nations, we're all free to engage in it, or not. If you don't like the idea of paying for land, don't own land. Enjoy your rent servitude instead, if you prefer giving your hard earned money to someone else. That part is your choice, no one is forcing you to do it.

 

You're the one who wants to deprive people of access to land unless they meet a landowner's extortion demands. I advocate a system where everyone has free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity.

<yawn> Sharing is not a solution to massive, systematic, institutionalized injustice. It just redistributes the injustice. FYI, fighting institutionalized injustice is an incomparably more difficult task than merely sharing. I notice you've found a plausible-sounding rationalization for avoiding that far harder work.

No, that's just more absurd and disingenuous blame-the-victim filth from you. I have plenty of personal responsibilities to discharge, thank you very much. But trying to make up for what the privileged are doing to my fellows by sacrificing my own interests is not one of them. I'm not going to sell the bread I bake for $3/loaf while I still have to pay the racketeer $2/loaf for the opportunity to sell it for $5/loaf.

GET IT????

No it's not, because I'm showing how to make sure the unkindest people who do the most harm to others are kinder.

 

A few do. But very few people whose parents did not own land become landowners. It just takes too much strength and agility to clamber from the treadmill up onto the escalator it powers.

The fact that some people are strong enough to run a race while carrying a parasitic free rider on their back does not mean those who aren't strong enough are to blame for not being strong enough. And it sure as hell doesn't mean those who get carried across the finish line by riding on others' backs somehow earned it.

No, you are makin' $#!+ up again. Taxes do fund privilege -- of which I enjoy a much smaller share than my share of the taxes -- but paying for defense of freedom accounts for a very small portion of my taxes. Almost all goes for privilege, and the desirable public services and infrastructure that enrich the privileged (Google "Henry George Theorem" and start reading).

<yawn> What an evil load of despicable, disingenuous ad hominem filth. I've done plenty of doing in my time, and I will thank you to remember it. Would you call Thomas Paine a doer, or a complainer? How about Martin Luther? Or Martin Luther King?

No it's not. Having to pay an extortionist for permission to do business is not trade. It is extortion.

No. If we don't pay off an extortionist we are forcibly deprived of our liberty to work, shop, even exist.

If I want access to economic opportunity, I have to pay an extortionist for permission.

I have no choice about that. I have to either pay rent to an extortionist, or pay all the rent in advance to an extortionist plus interest to a mortgage lender (probably a greedy, privileged bankster).

Of course your claims are just baldly false, disingenuous, and evil. It is not my choice. It was not my choice to be forcibly stripped of my right to liberty, and thus have to meet a landowner's extortion demands just for permission to work, shop, or even exist.