Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

what would be the point given that most teachers are liberal. This would only hasten the decline of civilization.

 

No, because the moved atom was not provided by nature in its new location. So it's not something others would otherwise have access to. I've already proved you wrong on that point dozens of times.

That's just objectively false, as well as absurd and disingenuous. Only atoms in their natural places are gifts of nature. You are literally claiming that the computer you are using to post your nonsense is a gift of nature.

Go ahead. Atoms are abundant. No one is being deprived of access to atoms, so their liberty to access atoms is unimpaired by atoms removed from nature being private property. We've already established that, by the example of breathing. Your liberty to breathe atmospheric air is not impaired by my breathing it.

YOU KNOW THIS.

 

Stalin and Mao were interested in concepts of equality and wealth distribution.

 

Actually, you haven't. You have merely asserted your claim.

Nobody created the atoms in my computer. They are a gift of nature.

If you deny me access to the atoms that nature provided, then you are depriving me access to that which I might otherwise have access.

You're wrong. Atoms are provided by nature, and anyone who deprives another access to those atoms is depriving them of their rights.

 

So you argue for a legal system that in which there is no ownership of land? A legal system in which I could plant a field of corn and then someone could legally enter my land and steal my all my corn? If there are no property rights in land, why would anyone feel secure in doing anything that required that land?

 

he assumes a honest libNazi govt that would somehow know how to administer the land better than the free market

 

Yes, of course I have. And you know it. You are just trying to contrive some way of not knowing it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

No. Unlike you, I have supported my view with facts and logic.

Nope. Flat wrong. They WERE a gift of nature as long as they were in their natural places. The entire difference between natural resources and a computer is in the labor expended putting those atoms in different places than nature put them. So the atoms in your computer are no longer a gift of nature.

Clear?

Nope. Objectively false. You would only otherwise have access to the atoms WHERE NATURE PUT THEM. You would NOT otherwise have access to them where LABOR put them, because nature didn't put them there.

YOU KNOW THIS.

No, I am correct as a matter of objective physical fact.

In their natural places.

Nope. Objectively wrong. Your claim is indisputably false, because it implies an absurdity: that "depriving" others of the atoms I breathe, the atoms that constitute my vital organs, somehow violates their rights. You have therefore been conclusively refuted by reductio ad absurdum. Everything you say based on your claim is therefore also false, and can be dismissed without further argumentation.

 

Correct. Just as there is no ownership of the atmosphere, the sun, etc.: things everyone needs, and no one created.

No, of course not. Corn is a product of labor, not land.

YOU KNOW THIS. Why do you always have to pretend you do not? Why do you always have to pretend that products of labor are not products of labor, and that land IS a product of labor? Don't you understand what it means when you always have to pretend that indisputable facts of objective physical reality are other than what they indisputably are?

If there are no property rights in the sun, why would anyone feel secure in doing anything that required the sun?

See how silly, fallacious, and disingenuous your "arguments" are always proved to be?

If people need to use sunlight, they feel secure in using it because they know government is not going to let anyone else deprive them of their liberty to use it. That is government's job. Likewise, if people want to use land exclusively, they will feel secure in using it because they will have made just payment to the community of those thus excluded, for the privilege of excluding them from it. Government will do its job because it wants to keep getting the revenue, just like any other honest dealer in a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction. Why is it so hard for you to understand the concept of paying justly for what you take from others? Is it because you want to take from others and not pay them justly for what you take?

 

There can be no free market with land as property, because that violates everyone's rights to liberty and requires a forced subsidy to the landowners. Free markets can't include forced subsidization of some at the expense of others.

 

so a libNazi govt of wise people will decide what just payment is and not the free market??

 

no really since everyone has the liberty to buy land or factories or retail stores so they too can get paid what you call subsides if they want to.

 

The free market (which can't exist without location subsidy repayment) will decide: people will bid up to the economic advantage obtainable by using the land, but won't be willing to pay more.

 

Being "at liberty" to pay for permission to exercise one's right to liberty is not the same as actually having a right to liberty. And being at liberty to pay for the privilege of pocketing a subsidy is not the same as there not being a subsidy, just as everyone being at liberty to buy slaves is not the same as everyone having their rights to liberty.

GET IT?????????

 

sure it is, either way you pay for your land or for a your factory and customers subsidize or pay you what you paid for land and or factory.

 

so to buy land you pay the free market price and customers then pay you in higher prices what you paid for land??? Moronic!!!

 

Were the atoms in my computer created by someone's labor?

If not, then they are a gift of nature.

 

So you're arguing for a legal system in which there is no ownership of land. So, under your system, do we know who may exclude others from using any particular piece of land?

 

Define "right to liberty".

 

I'd rather have hundreds of thousands of individual land owners than one monopolist land owner (the government) that deprives us of our right to access that which nature has provided.

 

You see government cannot be trusted EXCEPT to control all the land, everywhere. They wouldn't have too much power, not at all. And that's not even Marxist in nature.

Amirite?

 

Yes we all know that the ends don't justify the means - something some right wing dictatorships clearly forgot, and some of which were supported by the CIA during the cold war, to aid the overthrow of even popularly elected leaders, eg, Allende in Chile.

People in glass houses....?

 

glass houses???? Allende???? if you have any idea what your subject is and what your point is point is please tell us. Thanks

 

James old chap, exercise your brain - it will be good practice for seeing another point of view....and after a while I'm sure the point will become clear.

In the meantime, I'm waiting for our resident economist to explain the alleged violation of the basic principles of Econ101 - putting aside political realities for the moment - that would preclude funding by a global bank (by creating the necessary funds in the various nations' currencies) to achieve free and universal education, given the minimal increase in demand for physical resources required.

 

1) if taxpayers want to pay for it nothing would preclude it
2) a far better idea is to have parents pay for their children's education and their children in general. That way every parent is deeply involved, managing and monitoring rather than surrendering their authority to a bureaucratic monopolistic Nazi/Communist state wasting other people's money with no consequences.

 

Those are political considerations.

In the meantime, I'm waiting for our resident economist to explain the alleged violation of the basic principles of Econ101 - putting aside political realities for the moment - that would preclude funding by a global bank (by creating the necessary funds in the various nations' currencies) to achieve free and universal education, given the minimal increase in demand for physical resources required.
Note: there is no 'wasting of other people's money' involved, rather a mechanism to enable allocation of unused resources (in this case, knowledge) for a public good (expansion of knowledge), where the market manifestly fails to achieve this.