The problem of Capitalism

1) You can EXPECT anything you like, but people will always behave as people do. In their own best interests (whatever they may be). If a jurisdiction offers more of anything, that's where everyone will go. Ergo, gradual collapse of other communities, and certain dramatic collapse of the one with 'more stuff'. California is already demonstrating the error of ignoring human nature.

2) Yes, VOLUNTARY communities. Yours won't be voluntary, and therefore common interests won't factor in to any of it. See California - no one gives a damn about anyone else. The place is exactly the kind of disaster you get when community is lost.

 

Really!!!?????

 

People behave very differently in different circumstances. Look at Libya.

Justice is in everyone's best interests -- except those who intend to profit from injustice.

It is expected that inferior systems will lose in competition with superior ones.

Nope. We're still waiting for Switzerland to collapse.

Right: Proposition 13 ignored the fact that forcing the state and all local governments in CA to give exorbitant, increasing, and unsustainable subsidies to landowners would create a dystopian nightmare of high taxes on production, unaffordable housing, crumbling infrastructure and intractable social problems.

It will be incomparably more voluntary than communities where people's rights to liberty have been forcibly stripped from them and given to landowners.

Because of Proposition 13. The opposite of what I propose.

It's the kind of disaster you get when government is forced to give exorbitant, increasing, and unsustainable subsidies to greedy, privileged parasites.

 

That would be a second-best option. A universal individual exemption (UIE) that restored their liberty right to use land would be better.

No, only one can occupy it exclusively. The rest all get compensation, and free, secure, exclusive tenure to the available advantageous land of their choice up to the UIE amount.

 

Government-issued and -enforced land patents prevent people from exercising their natural liberty rights to use land. The need to purchase permission to use land is precisely the proof that people's liberty rights have been forcibly stripped from them and given to landowners. Having to pay a parasite for permission to use the land IS the barrier. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way of explaining that to you.

<sigh> You could with equally disingenuous obtuseness ask what EXACTLY is preventing slaves from buying their rights to liberty from their owners. It is precisely the need to buy permission to exercise one's right to liberty from a parasite that is the proof there is a legal barrier that prevents it.

 

He would only have to pay for government once instead of twice, so he would no longer have to support the greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning class out of his wages.

And I'd wager that almost everyone would very quickly get used to making just compensation to their fellows for what they take and receiving just compensation from their fellows for what is taken from them, and would fight to the death against any effort to remove the benefits of liberty and justice from their society by restoring landowner privilege.

 

If there's no difference, why do you oppose justice in taxation and land tenure with such maniacal ferocity, hmmmmm?

You are of course actually well aware of the difference: Instead of paying for government twice so that greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing, the productive would only have to pay once for what they took from the community by holding land in exclusive tenure. YOU KNOW that landowners would no longer get something for nothing, everyone else would consequently no longer get nothing for something, and that is precisely why you oppose justice with such maniacal ferocity.

 

I know I have comprehensively and conclusively demolished all objections. And so do you.

I know everyone has a right to their rights, no matter if someone else owns them.

ROTFL!! Do you think the abolitionists refrained from stealing slaves for themselves because they were scared to try and take them (actually, some did)? That is merely the sort of schoolyard-bully thinking I have come to expect from you. They didn't steal slaves for themselves because that would not in any way have addressed the problem.

Would it?

I know it wouldn't solve anything even if I weren't.

<yawn> I guess that must be why I have proved in multiple ways that it is not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent.

 

So if 100,000 people all want that plot (and they will, given the compensation), they'll all be compensated?

Let's bring this back to your old enemy, human nature.

 

1) Like when we buy property. Just like that, in fact. Oy vey ...

2) No, everyone would not quickly get used to it. They will fight it til their last breaths, because that's what happens in a democracy. Democracy .. you know? That mechanism we rely on to obviate totalitarianism. The mechanism that brings with it the reality that there will never be more than 50% in favour of your totalitarian ideas (beyond a single election cycle).

 

Using totalitarian comment against a natural rights approach? Attempting to use human nature as a stick, when Georgism is more soundly based on such concepts (compared to supply side economics which treats humans in the exact same way as inanimate objects)? Crank has seemingly turned into an automatic right wing cliche machine...

 

The armchair a little more comfortable, after typing that Reivs?

 

All fine here! I'm no fan of Georgism, but putting you right is just a matter of common decency

 

Well gee, thanks guy!

I'll be sure to cogitate upon the wisdom of capitalist exclusivism this afternoon, while pulling potatoes with the members of our collective who've volunteered to help. It's summer here, so spud time. Lots of cheap meals, yay! Another family is currently needing help with fencing, so I'll use that time to think some more - eg how much nicer it would be if I could live in my own private Idaho (potato reference).

 

No problem. Here to help, particularly in eliminating such crass error

 

It often generates the same result. Land ownership in the UK, for example, ensured a life of servitude for most (followed by a miserable death in a poor house). It took two world wars to only reduce these effects (given our land ownership still maintains Dickensian level inequality). You really should think things through a tad!

 

So who, in your preferred system, would be the landlord to whom I would need to pay rent in order gain exclusive use of a piece of land?

 

I appreciate it. I mean heck, we wouldn't want any more people falling into the terrible trap of resource sharing. Imagine if everyone did that. The horror!

 

Super! We might be able to get you to shift from right wing economics, eventually. Let's not pretend we can't!

 

Are you, for some reason, unable to do the whole "worker-owned" thing? What's stopping you?

 

His very comfortable armchair

 

Really? You're going to keep fending off your guilt by pointing at semantics?

It's beneath you, Reivs.

 

Armchair quarterback?

 

I love how you very conveniently have a love-in with the other right wingers. That's a good sign. It informs me that you've at least given up on pretending.

 

So, are you a worker-owner?