Glad you agree that the results aren't the same. One is owning a human being, and the other is owning land. The 2 are in no way comparable.
I couldn't agree with anything you say. You determinedly demand the illogical. On the bright side, you reaffirm what I think of centrists
I'm simply pointing out reality. You are certainly free to reject it. Owning land and owning a human being are in no way comparable. Sorry.
You can't use that old chestnut, as we've already shown the life expectancy costs from being landless. Clearly you aren't able to offer any sound counter, so let's ask a different question. Why do you think both left and right wing economists agree with the Georgist approach, highlighting how current land ownership systems guarantee both severe equity and efficiency problems?
and we've already established that this is entirely irrelevant to anything I've stated. The simple facts remain, comparing owning a human to owning land is an invalid comparison. That will never stop being true. Sorry.
Again, I'm not interested in your inability to appreciate economic reality. Here is the question you ignored: Why do you think both left and right wing economists agree with the Georgist approach, highlighting how current land ownership systems guarantee both severe equity and efficiency problems?
There is no fairer system than the freedom to choose (land ownership, or not), and the opportunities to make it happen. The poorest and least advantaged can secure land in our rich democracies (penniless, non-English speaking refugees being the perfect litmus test of this truth), and the most privileged can opt not to. There is literally not a single legal or institutional barrier to either choice. There hasn't been in a long time. Even back in the early 70's, Indo-Chinese refugees were making good in the West. African and Afghan refugees are doing so today. If we can provide enough opportunity and freedom to enable a newly arrived, non-English speaking, unskilled refugee to work their way to property ownership within a single generation (often much less, given their great determination), then we have unmatched 'equity'. The like of which can only be dreamed of by the world's poor .... most of whom would do whatever it takes to be able to own a small plot of land in a rich and free nation.
Such a simple question: Why do you think both left and right wing economists agree with the Georgist approach, highlighting how current land ownership systems guarantee both severe equity and efficiency problems? Still no answer!
That is merely your incorrect opinion. They are helped as much by my identification of the facts of economics and the true nature of the evil that is robbing, oppressing, enslaving and killing them as by "armchair lectures" identifying the facts of medicine and the true nature of the illnesses they suffer. You are simply -- and absurdly and disingenuously -- claiming that the scientists whose "armchair lectures" led to the discovery and publication of the fact that contagious disease is caused by microbes did not help sufferers from such illness in any way because it took doctors, engineers, etc. to actually treat and prevent such disease. Yes, well, one can only hope. But few people are even as conscious as you. Both products of private labor... Because my liberty to use the land has been forcibly stripped from me without just compensation, and it would be hard to do this in the ocean, the air, or outer space.
I know -- and so do you -- that they haven't. YOU know you are too terrified even to attempt to refute them, because you know you will be demolished and humiliated again, and your beliefs conclusively proved false and evil. I have always had, and always will have, an absolute right to take any "property" that consists of my rights, just as any person has an absolute right to take any "property" that consists of their rights. <yawn> Is that what happened when the landless peasants of France took the "property" of the aristos? Is that what happened when the Meijji Japanese took the "property" of the parasitic landowning samurai class? YOU KNOW that it isn't, and that fact terrifies you so much that you can't even offer any sort of facts or logic in support of your evil views. LOL! I AM doing it. I am merely, unlike you, able to think beyond the range of the moment and plan for the long term rather than just pursuing my own immediate gratification. I have proved, multiple times and in multiple different ways, that they are not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent. And you know it. The only difference between owning land and owning a slave is that when you own a slave, you own all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you own one of all people's rights.
True. See your "contributions" to this discussion Their products. Because the Land Owner said so, or the Queen...? BY WHAT RIGHT doid either of them forcibly remove the liberty rights of those they are robbing? Whether slave or tenant, the fruit of their labor is taken by the Owner in return for nothing. Landowners are always dependent on the acquiescence of their victims.
Noble Blood Lines give them land rights over the peasant class, the Royals saw slavery as uncivilised and freed them. peasants are not slaves because they are not owned by the Queen. the only reason Landowners allow peasants the privilege of working on their land is to prevent an uprising they could easily put down. the Queen does not need nor want the product of peasant labor, it is merely Royals being cordial to the lesser and avoiding unnecessary conflict.
That proved, in France, to be deadly to an entire class wedded to the notion of an all-powerful royal-family that descended historically to rule the country. Such mindless economic-unfairness thankfully no longer exists in most developed countries. But that does not mean either that sharing of the wealth generated communally is fair-and-equitable throughout. That notion is best described by the measure of Income Disparity - that is, how national-income is shared. (Who gets what amount.) As aptly shown here: I have not produced that above infographic to show gross unfairness, but to indicate that the countries taxation is way out-of-kilter. Because that upper green block shows a constituency in which wealth is handed down within the family. In a nation where "hard-work" is supposed to be a Prime Rule in order to earn a living, what is happening is the rich-get-richer and the poor rest blocked in poverty. Is it that way elsewhere as well. Well, not exactly the same. Other countries with more liberalized notions of wealth tax it more severly. The consequence is obvious:
those charts and graphs appear as socialism to an American landowner. America was founded by Landowners who gave the peasants the opportunity to be land owning capitalists too by defeating england. they are free to remain communal peasants, but cannot take the property rights of Queens for equitable communal living.
When 'the crown' owns or administers all the land, that is authoritarianism/totalitarianism. It's not socialism, in any way.
A FAIR AND HONEST POLITICAL PLEBISCITE Doesn't surprise me. Americans haven't the foggiest notion of what "socialism" really is, and you-plural employ the word far too largely. Socialism exists nowhere in the world anymore. (Maybe in North Korea, but jerko there is trying desperately to get out of it.) Bollocks! Your notion of American history is the BS believed by the largely uniformed in American civic-history. Civics in the US is inadequately well-taught. What is true about American history is the notion that took hold (in both the US and France) that monarchy was not a "natural right". So, both countries decided to overturn this aged concept. France did it wrong, the US did it right. It booted the Brits out, and went about - as best they could - founding a nation based upon the principle of human-rights. That is, governments are created by the means of the popular-vote and only the popular-vote. But, right from the get-go, our "forefathers" got the process wrong. Because they thought the voting should be modified by "brighter minds". Meaning they did not really believe the intellectual level of the country was sufficient to run the country properly. So, they created political "artifacts" to manipulate the voting process. The two best known adopted in 1812 were the Electoral College and Gerrymandering. Both are ploys to manipulate the popular-vote - which should remain untouchable and preeminent in any fair-and-honest political plebiscite. Which, unfortunately, is not the case in the US today. Our voting mechanism needs serious rework: *First and foremost to assure that electing the PotUS is a selection process by means ONLY of the popular-vote that the states report to Congress. Which in turn announces the winner. Then, *At the state level to effectively make illegal the gerrymandering of voting precincts. "Free men" is an ambiguity. Women aren't "free"? (What planet do you live on?!?)
When the top American land owners own over a million acres of land, it does make the Duke of Westminster's thousands look small fry...
divine rights of kings belong to queens too peasants cannot steal the wealth of landowners for equitable redistribution among their communes. the noble class rightfully has disproportionate representation in government. the purpose of the majority is to serve landowners. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/peasant
Despite that being ancient history, and not even remotely relevant to modern democracies, that's exactly what would happen again under BIO's 'govt controls all the lands' scenario.
"Socialists" don't have the foggiest notion of what it is, so how is anyone else expected to grasp it. "Socialists" actually think it means redistribution of capitalist profits. How funny is that! And socialism exists all over the world. Always has.
Those are just legal privileges, not rights. Nope. They just realized slavery was redundant: when all the good land is owned, you can treat the landless like slaves without the bother of actually owning them. It is the landowner who is privileged, and I will thank you to remember it. The only thing that makes it "their" land is forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it. Only as long as useful idiots paid to violate others' rights don't understand their own rights or how landowner privilege impoverishes them. Garbage. Without it, she starves to death. No, it is rich, greedy, privileged parasites stealing from their betters.
<yawn> I know you know you are too terrified even to offer an argument against my views, because you know you will just be demolished and humiliated again, and the falsity and evil of your beliefs made excruciatingly plain to you. Everyone has a right to their rights, even if the evil claim to own them. <yawn> Is that what happened when the landless French peasants took the property of the aristos? Is it what happened when the abolitionists took the property of the slave owners. LOL!! Wasn't there some other ninny who was always claiming others were afraid? Thanks for reassuring me that the opposition is still despicable.
Divine rights exist nowhere in the developed world. They are a figment of the imagination of uneducated people. (Iow, division of church and state that should never ever happen anywhere.) What "peasants"? You still living in the 19th century? The sort of statement that indicates accurately your level of intellect. Any further exchange with you is hopeless. You go on Ignore ...