Complaining about Taxes is pointless

I have, and it is fact. It is you who need to start looking things up (you won't).

False. I have identified many.

Because I don't like injustice. You do, as long as you think it is in your narrow financial interest. Simple.

 

rights are essentially a claim. if you can back them up with force, then they are more valuable

 

you want to take wealth away from others. they may well use that wealth to stop your schemes

 

Because it is unjust. But I hate socialism more.

Only the corporate privileges such as limited liability.

No it doesn't.

I hate evil. But as I have stated many times, socialism is even worse than capitalism, and I can explain exactly why.

 

No, they are a societal undertaking.

Rights are rights even when they are being violated by force. Your view is that slaves had no right to liberty until it was restored to them by force. But if that were so, on what basis would it ever have been restored?

Blank out.

 

Who "own" others' rights to liberty as assets. Like slave owners. Correct.

Just like slave owners. So? Those who profit from evil generally like to keep on doing so. History shows that the privileged prefer to perish in blood and flame, and to watch their children slaughtered before their eyes, rather than relinquish even the smallest portion of their unjust advantages.

 

Calling facts opinions is not an argument -- but it's all you have.

False. I have defined the term to identify facts you would prefer not be identified.

Like, "emancipation"...? There are few acts a human being can commit that are more evil than accusing those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it.

 

No, that is nothing but disingenuous ad hominem filth -- which is all you have.

I want to make the rules consistent with justice. You hate justice because you prefer injustice as long as it is profitable to you personally. But hating justice is kind of evil, don't you think?

 

No, that will be just and benefit the community.

That justice is better than injustice is evidently not an opinion you share...

 

ruining years of family wealth is an abomination and probably would lead to some nastiness on the part of those being the intended victims of your loathing of capitalism

 

Except when that wealth has been obtained unjustly, by crime, privilege, or other such abominations. If your claim were valid, it would be an abomination to "ruin" the years of "family wealth" that slave-holding families accumulated by systematically abrogating the rights of their slaves. Therefore, it is already known for certain that your claim is objectively false, with no further argumentation needed.

Certainly. Just as slave owners engaged in some nastiness when their unjust capitalist privilege was threatened. The fact that those who profit from evil would like to continue doing so is not much of an argument to maintain the evil. But it's all you have, so I suppose you have to make the most of it.

 

just cut the BS. people who invested in stock didn't get it "Unjustly" and your seething hatred of those who are more prosperous than you are, gets old. Your envy permeates your pathetically biased arguments.

 

I'm not the one making baldly false, unsupported, and disingenuous claims to rationalize and justify injustice. You are. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies.

You don't know how they got it, so stop falsely claiming that you somehow know they got it justly. And in any case, it is the value of stock that mostly comes from privilege, not the stock itself.

The greater the private accumulation of assets, the lower the probability that any significant portion of them was actually earned by commensurate contributions to production.

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

That is nothing but the same groundless and disingenuous ad hominem filth that has constituted your entire "argument" thus far.

There are few acts a human being can commit that are more evil than to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it.

 

you still haven't figured out that your arguments are mere opinions and nothing you have posted can be proven "true". You're just mad that I see through the BS and have called your opinions for what they are

 

That claim is objectively false. Claiming that objectively verified facts are opinions is a common tactic, but does not alter their truth.

I'm not mad, just wearied beyond description of your absurd and disingenuous ad hominem nonsense. The Henry George Theorem is a proven fact of economics, and calling it an opinion cannot alter that fact. Likewise the Law of Rent. It is not an opinion that landowners are made wealthy without lifting a productive finger. It is a fact.

 

listen-you just miss the point. You draw an opinion from stuff you call facts. You want a society where stock holders have their wealth raped and you claim landowners do nothing to derisive their wealth. both those are OPINIONS and I reject them. I want those of us who invested wisely and spend prudently continue to increase our wealth, even if it causes lamentations by those like you

 

I identify the relevant facts and their logical implications.

To the extent -- often substantial -- that it is based on privilege. You always have to ignore that part.

No, it is indisputable that the unimproved value of land is a subsidy to the landowner. They may have paid the previous owner for the legal right to pocket the subsidy, but it is still a subsidy paid for by violating others' rights.

So, the same "argument" slave owners used against the abolitionists. That's what I said.

 

this is all opinion. your rights aren't implicated because someone else owns property. that is where you fail. You see, society has determined that private property is something worth protecting. If society did not, then those of us with the most wealth would be able to protect our property and the least affluent could not. Your "right" to use or travel on property others claim as theirs is limited to your ability to force your beliefs on them.

 

False. You just need to somehow find a willingness to know the fact that calling facts "opinions" cannot alter them.

LOL!! Tell it to slaves...

When someone claims to own property that consists of my rights, as slave owners and landowners do, my rights are self-evidently and indisputably implicated.

That is where you fail, and always will.

Just as it did with slaves.

Why can't you ever remember that chattel slavery proves you objectively wrong?

Feudalism proves you objectively wrong. In the absence of government, the most vicious and ruthless ended up with the property.

No, their claim to own property depends on their ability to force their beliefs on everyone else.

 

I am perfectly content to stipulate that just like slave owners, landowners have invested widely and prudently -- even in "good faith" -- according to the prevailing law. They just haven't invested productively, and have therefore not in fact actually earned any return. Their "investments" are in fact privileges of legalized stealing.

Just like slave owners.

GET IT????

You need to somehow come up with a justification for landowner greed, privilege and parasitism that would not equally apply to chattel slavery when it was legal. And you can't.

 

more silly opinions-trying to tie land ownership to slavery is moonbat barking. You're apparently upset you don't own as much land as you want. I am going to continue to laugh at this silliness

 

Complaining about anything is usually pointless. That is unless one has the power and ability to change it. But complaining does make many of us feel better.

 

We don't have to do anything. You are powerless.

 

:LOL: You seem to be under an erroneous impression that I, personally, am responsible for correcting the world's evils. I'm not. I am, however, responsible for identifying and opposing them, as all righteous human beings (might not include you) are.

 

Facts you cannot dispute -- only deny.

That's just empty name calling. There are many close similarities between private landowning and chattel slavery -- which is why the "arguments" you have used to justify the former so closely resemble those used to justify the latter.

That's just another bald fabrication on your part. You merely assume that everyone else's motivations must be the same as yours: narrow financial self-interest.

"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
-- Gandhi