On poverty

Oh look. So you don't want anybody to own land.

 

You've run out of places to hide and moved on from reply to dismissal.
Happens.

 

Everything is that way, that is to say everything is basically just being rented. Even fruit and vegetables which you eat and then turn into **** doesn't cease to exist but just changes state and goes back to "the Earth" Nevertheless the farmer charges me some coin for the cucumbers and broccoli I buy rather than an acknowledgement of my debt to the All-Father

 

You are paying for the farmers labour, not the cucumber. You can have the cucumber free if you grow it yourself.

 

No it isn't.

No it isn't.

And where you live on Planet Zondo, that might be relevant. Not here on earth.

Did that little exercise in disingenuous tripe enable you to avoid knowing the relevant facts of objective physical reality?

 

So you agree that your claim I oppose property in the fruits of one's labor was a bald fabrication on your part?

Owning land (or anything else that is not the product of anyone's labor) means owning others' liberty rights to use it. Owning other people's rights to liberty is slavery. The only difference between landowning and slavery is that slavery removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time. The equivalence of landowning and slavery is proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where private landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively in the economy through labor standards laws, minimum wages, welfare, public health, education and pension programs, union monopoly laws, etc. to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners.

 

You are the one who appears to have led a sheltered life, as the world is pretty much packed with dodgy people. To paraphrase the immortal George Carlin, think of how dodgy the average person is, and then remember that half of them are even dodgier than that.

One can be generally responsible without being the sort of paragon you consider minimally acceptable. I remember when the majority of men were smokers, FFS!

It's greed, not hedonism, that has replaced honesty, responsibility and justice in people's priorities.

It's true that greed and its legal arm privilege reliably destroy every society that makes them a higher value than liberty, justice and honesty.

 

Nonsense. How much labor the farmer put into growing the cucumber is completely irrelevant to its market value. The relevant fact is that you are paying for a cucumber that would not otherwise have existed, not its constituent atoms, which would.

 

So you don't want people to be able to own land, which is what I said. All your flowery words around that and your attempt to demonise it by associating it with slavery, don't change that fact. The fact I pointed out.
So how do you propose we solve this? (Lets see if the next part I said was true) I'll remind people because they'll forget while you prevaricate for another few pages.
Tigger2 Wrote: In short he wants to:
Take all privately owned property by force. Give it to the government. Rent it back to the highest bidder.
What could possibly go wrong.
Its not open to discussion any questions are met with a hail of accusation and derision.

 

That would struggle to be less relevant.
I think the farmer would not be assembling cucumbers from their constituent atoms if the reward did not match the effort.
Incidentally 'assembling cucumbers from their constituent atoms' is commonly called 'growing cucumbers' It helps with the flow and brevity of conversation.

 

You just love finding new ways to be wrong, don't you?

Which was my point. Except that the farmer would not mind at all if the reward exceeded the effort, which proves the effort (labor) is not what the cuke buyer is paying for.

GET IT???

My rejoinder was to Aleksander's silly claim about food only being "rented" as its constituents return to the earth after it is eaten.

 

It proves nothing of the sort, just because he wouldn't mind if reward exceeded effort does not mean he would still grow cukes if reward did not meet effort.
You can't just spout jargonized rubbish mixed with insults and think that equates to fact.

 

No it isn't. I invite all readers to confirm that in post #1124 in this thread, you said (referring to me):

Now you are disingenuously pretending you did not say that.

I have identified the facts of objective physical reality that prove landowning is morally and economically similar to slavery. You merely call that "demonizing" because it proves landowning is evil.

Your claim, quoted above, was indisputably false as a matter of objective physical fact. I identified that fact.

By justice in public revenue and land tenure institutions: require those who deprive everyone else of the land to repay the community of those deprived for what they are taking from them. You just want landowners to be legally entitled to take from everyone else and not repay them. Simple.

I have consistently stated the facts. You have prevaricated, as I proved above, and will continue to do so, as I prove below:

As you are aware that not all property is land, you just proved you are the one who prevaricated, not me. You also prevaricated when you claimed that I want to take land by force. Land has ALREADY been taken by force. I just want those who have taken it to repay the right party for taking it from them. Force would only come into the picture if those who have taken it refuse to pay for what they have taken, just as a baker only uses force to reclaim a loaf of bread if a customer takes it but refuses to pay for it.

That is another prevarication on your part. Government administers possession and use of land as a trustee for the people in any case because that is what government is: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. But a trustee does not own the trust assets. The only question is whether government will discharge its duty of trust wrt land tenure in the interest of and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all the people, as I advocate, or only in the narrow financial interest of a rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning overclass at the expense of everyone else, as you advocate.

That is another prevarication on your part. The land trust administration would simply calculate the subsidy being given to the landholder by the community and send him a bill for it. Market bidding would affect the calculation, but the current landholders would retain possession as long as they paid their bills, just as now.

So everything you said was objectively false.

 

Yes, of course it does.

It means he is aware, even if you are not, that his customers are paying him for cucumbers, not his labor.

You can't just deny the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality without any evidence and think you are making an argument.

 

We haven't got to that bit yet, that's the bit where you explain how you acquire the land currently privately owned.
For clarity I will tell everyone now (Just in case they're to thick to know) I am paraphrasing your aims, not directly quoting you.

That's what you think you are doing, but not how others see it. Incidentally, what is "objective physical reality" How can one be objective about reality?

And if they can't pay?

I think everyone understood I meant by property. It was in context.

How it was taken originally does not make you taking it legal or right.

I think you are struggling with the meaning of prevarication.

More flowery phrases. You really ought to get the courage to stand behind your convictions. You want government to take the land we would currently recognise as privately owned and rent it back to the owner. And worse take it from the owner if they are offered a better rent from some one else. who never owned it.

I love it, do you work for the local council.
The land trust administration would simply calculate the subsidy being given to the landholder by the community
That would be nothing then.
Market bidding would affect the calculation, but the current landholders would retain possession as long as they paid their bills, just as now
So you would calculate the rental value of the land and charge the owner that rental value even though its his land.
And if he wouldn't/couldn't pay you would give his land to someone else.

There, didn't take too long to get to.
Tigger 2:In short he wants to: Take all privately owned property by force.

Oh and there's more folks. Brid's would even take into account any improvements YOU had made to the YOUR land when calculating the rent he will charge you for it.
Its truly diamond stuff.

 

Yes we have, in your post #1124 in this thread where you falsely claimed I purpose to take all property from its owners.

You simply made that up. At no point have I expressed any intention to acquire any land.

More accurately, you are just makin' $#!+ up and falsely attributing it to me because you are trying to justify evil, and have no facts or logic to offer.

You do not speak for anyone but yourself, and I will thank you to remember it.

The reality that has the last word.

I am unable rightly to apprehend the sort of confusion of ideas that could prompt such a question.

People should not take things they can't pay for.

I think everyone understood that you meant "property." There is no definition of "property" that means "land." The closest is real estate, which includes both land and fixed improvements.

There was no context to indicate you meant anything other than property, and you deliberately said, "property" and not "land" to give readers a false impression that I purposed to confiscate rightful property in the products of labor.

That is exactly the "argument" slave owners used to justify keeping their slaves' right to liberty.

Moreover, at no point have I proposed my taking land. That is simply another fabrication in your long roster of fabrications.

No. You are struggling because you are trying to justify evil, and the only way to justify evil is with prevarications.

Facts identified in clear, grammatical English.

Oh, I do. You, however, do not, which is why you have to make $#!+ up and falsely attribute it to me.

"We"? You speak only for yourself; and I have said repeatedly that government would not confiscate land but merely change the policy under which its private possession and use is administered.

What would make him the "owner" but government's say-so? All private land titles have been issued on condition that the taxes be kept current, with no undertaking that those taxes would never be increased, or the basis of their calculation remain unchanged. You just don't want to pay for what you are taking from the community. Simple.

That is another fabrication on your part, and already refuted. A baker who charges $2 for a loaf of bread does not take it back from the customer if another customer offers $3.

No one has ever rightly owned it, or ever will.

No.

No, the land's current market value records the market's estimate of the net future after-tax subsidy to the landowner. The current subsidy is its after-tax unimproved rental value -- which subsidy is proven by the fact that the current "owner" was ever willing to pay so much for it in the first place.

No, because as it was never produced by anyone's labor, it cannot rightly be his land.

No, they would have to pay for it, same as a baker sells a loaf of bread to someone who pays for it, not someone who doesn't.

Right: didn't take too long to show that every claim you have made is false.

Which you have admitted is a bald fabrication.

No, that is just another bald fabrication on your part. The subsidy to be repaid is the unimproved rental value of the location.

Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies.

 

I'm sure that sounded good in your head. Like a win, bless ya

 

That was a reference back to our previous conversation. I was awaiting you to re- confirm it for me, which you diligently did.

By "apprehend" do you mean arrest or comprehend? Why don't you write using words you know instead of trying to use big ones to look important.

Nonetheless that is the current status quo, so you would need to change it and as its not going to be given willingly you will have to resort to force.

But its not the bakers loaf, it already belongs to the individual. In order for the baker to own it again you have to take it from the individual.
However you dance around this, it starts with you forcibly removing land from those who feel they already own it.
You pretending they don't legally own it is you justifying your actions. Man up and admit to it.

 

No, that's false. In our previous conversation I carefully explained the difference between rightful property in the fruits of one's labor and wrongful property in privileges such as land deeds and slave deeds in clear, grammatical English. In post #1098 in this thread, you even explicitly acknowledged that you were aware that I was speaking specifically about land and not "property":

After having disingenuously substituted "employers" for "the privileged" in our conversation, you then disingenuously substituted "property" for "land," and disingenuously tried to pretend my opposition to owning the latter was opposition to owning the former.

Learn or grasp. Comprehend is close enough.

I write using words I know -- which happens to be quite a lot. You then change them to quite different words that I also know, and pretend I used those words rather than the words I used.

So all you can offer is the exact same "arguments" slave owners used to justify maintaining slavery. Sorry, but if an argument would justify slavery, it is already known to be fallacious with no further argumentation needed. People being accustomed to tolerate and accept an evil is not an argument that it is good rather than evil.

Only on the condition, known to him at the time of purchase, that he pays for it.

The individual who claims to own the bread but refuses to pay for it is the one doing the taking, and I will thank you to remember it.

No, it started with the forcible removal, without just compensation, of everyone else's liberty rights to use the land. The remedy for that atrocity starts with asking those who currently hold it to pay for what they are taking. Only if they refuse to pay for what they are taking and continue forcibly stealing it from everyone else would the community have to use force in self-defense.

<sigh> Speaking of manning up and admitting to things, perhaps you could man up and admit that I haven't pretended they don't legally own it, any more than abolitionists pretended slave owners did not legally own their slaves.

 

As you have explained again above. Your opinion is that in America (I presume) the land the government sold to peoples ancestors was not sold and can be legally taken back. Your association with owning slaves is both wrong and extremely insulting. Human beings are sentient, land is not. The damage of slavery to humans is not comparable with owning land. Neither does your analogy of owning land forcing labour compare. Anyone who owns anything they rent out bought it in the first place, including land.

So you are unable to become aware of the words I'd written. bizarre.
1 : arrest, seize apprehend a thief. 2 : to become aware of : perceive.
It is clear that you think you know a lot.

No one used the argument that slavery should continue because it was always so. Those against slavery argued for change. You are trying to pretend we never owned land. Or that it was illegally obtained. You are wrong, you can reverse legal decisions but you cannot claim they were illegal in hindsight.

How far back do you have to go to get to that one? How many times has the land been bought and sold since then.
Much simpler would be to just say you are seizing all the land for the people and stop trying to justify it with stupid ideas that no one will ever sign up to.

 

And you will again ignore...

It's the same everywhere land is privately owned: original land titles ("patents" in the USA) were granted by governments (in the USA, often by European monarchs who never got within a thousand miles of the place) on the basis on nothing but forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.

It is correct as a matter of objective physical fact. Read and learn:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war
broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky
home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old
negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God,
I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.

<sigh> That is irrelevant, as already proved so very conclusively and so very many times. See above, where a man who actually was a slave just told you that landowning is even worse than slavery. Another proof: the earth's atmosphere is also not sentient. But if someone owned it, and charged the rest of us rent for air to breathe, we would effectively be their slaves.

GET IT?????

 

Yes of course I get it, but that's because he was worse off back then. I don't know anyone who would compare themselves to that slave in 2021. You are either a 130 years out of date or holding one hell of a grudge.
People are not slaves to land owners is any comparable way to slavery. No ones life is for sale, no one can be killed arbitrarily or on a whim.
No land owner can force you to stay working for him, nothing stops you bettering yourself or even buying your own land.
Your comparison to slavery is undermining your cause which in base form is to close the inequality gap (Something I support)
You have chosen a novel way to achieve it by seizing land, but your message is being lost in your ridiculous comparisons.

 

No, of course you don't. You refuse to:

See?

Because you don't know any landless people in countries where, because it is not democratically accountable, government doesn't intervene massively in the economy to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners, like Pakistan, the Philippines, Honduras, Bangladesh, and every other country in the history of the world where private landholding has been well established but government hasn't rescued the landless from enslavement by landowners.

No, I am just willing to know facts. You are not. Simple.

Wrong. They are wherever government does not rescue them from enslavement by landowners, such as in the countries mentioned above, where the condition of the landless is STILL indistinguishable from that of slaves.

Oh, no? The WHO estimates that 12-15M people per year are killed by poverty and poverty-related causes. Almost all of them are landless. Almost all of them could have survived if they had not had to pay landowners full market value just for permission to survive. That's two Holocausts a year, year after year, because you choose to rationalize and justify the evil institution that is killing them. By disingenuously rationalizing and justifying landowner privilege, YOU, PERSONALLY, are an accessory to the statistical MURDER of ~13M people per year. Their blood -- and the unjust suffering of billions more -- is on your hands, and I will thank you to remember it.

Do you think having a choice of master makes you any less a slave? Do you think the former actual slave who just tried (but sadly failed) to educate you cared that he had a "choice" of which landowner would take the fruits of his labor in return for nothing?

GARBAGE. Tell it to the ACTUAL former slave who just tried to explain the facts to you, and you ignored. Nothing stopped him from bettering himself and buying his own land, either -- except the same thing that stops people now: the legal requirement to pay landowners full market value just for permission to do so.

Not with honest people who are willing to know facts, it isn't.

No it isn't. My goal is liberty, justice and truth. Reduction of inequality is just a desirable side effect thereof.

No you don't. You want landowners to continue being legally entitled to steal from everyone else and not pay for what they are stealing.

Wrong again. It's about 270 years old, and has worked beautifully everywhere it has ever been tried.

That is a fabrication on your part, as already proved.

My invocation of liberty, justice and truth is only lost on the evil and those who rationalize, justify and excuse evil (that would be you).

 

Well that just demonstrates that it is possible to solve your problem without seizing peoples land. If you are having to cite third world countries to get anywhere near your comparison.

I would if he hadn't been dead for a 150 years, but I bet you he would think he was in paradise if he lived in America today.

How grand and utter bollox.

I think you over estimate my authority. I wrote to all those bad men telling them to stop it, but they just ignored me. How rude.
Perhaps we should up the anti and go over and try to stop them? Oh wait, we tried that didn't we.

You assume your crack pot idea is the only way to reduce inequality. I say your idea is so far from possible that you waste time and that makes YOU PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for all the suffering and death that goes on while you continue your narrow minded war.

Go on, I love click bait. Tell me where its worked beautifully. Is it Narnia?

 

You again repeat your false claim that I propose seizing people's land. You have seen multiple proofs that your claim is false, but you have decided you had better keep repeating it anyway.

Third World countries demonstrate the relevant relationships without the government intervention that hides them in countries with democratically accountable governments.

Not if you had any shame, you wouldn't.

Not for long, he wouldn't. Google "deaths of despair" and start reading.

Fact.

I think you underestimate the effect of rationalization of, and moral acquiescence to, evil.

No you didn't. You just contrived more disingenuous and fallacious rationalizations for their greed, privilege and evil.

Never. The USA has always intervened militarily in Third World countries ON THE SIDE OF and to preserve rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning elites. Read and learn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

It has been endorsed by many great thinkers, including all great economists.

No, you simply made that up. It has no relation to anything I have said. I have stated repeatedly that reducing inequality is not even the point. JUSTICE is the point.

GET IT???

Yet you have no factual or logical basis for such a claim. Again, READ AND TRY TO FREAKIN' LEARN:

“When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the confidence of British subjects.”

– Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850

By such absurd and disingenuous filth, you are merely trying to evade your own personal responsibility for the murders of millions of innocent people every year. Despicable.

Hong Kong, China during and following the reign of Kangxi, and since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping, Vancouver in the early 20th century, Meiji Japan, Renaissance Venice, California's water districts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,Singapore, Mughal India following the reforms of Akbar the Great, 16th-20th century Amsterdam, Denmark in the 1960s, the list goes on and on.