On poverty

I've seen the exact opposite. You intend to take their land and rent it back to them. You just try and hide that fact.

That doesn't make sense.

Jolly good, so government intervention has solved your invented problem, my work is done.

Yeah sure. The people who first arrived in unchartered territory and claimed it somehow robbed it from someone born 200 years later who had never been there. Is all property theft?

Have you noticed a common denominator in many of your examples? No?
That they are historical, they no longer exist. That is not normally seen as a sign of very successful. Hongkong was not formed that way out of some altruism the land wss leased to the British Government and couldn't be sold. It has some of the worst inequality you would care to see. You really are clueless.

Heres your truth and justice doing just fine in Hongkong. Shame on you for not knowing how lucky the people in your country are.

 

No you haven't. Stop makin' $##!+ up.

That's false. I intend only to require them to pay for what THEY are taking from everyone else. You just want them to be legally entitled to steal, so you falsely claim that by requiring them to pay instead of stealing, I would be the one doing the stealing! It's absurd, disingenuous and grotesque.

It is not a fact. It is a fabrication on your part, as proved above.

Yes it does. You have no shame, as proved by the fact that you proudly rationalize and justify an evil that kills millions of innocent people every year.

The problem is obviously real, not my invention, and government intervention hasn't solved it at all, merely masked it. You are effectively claiming that government taking $20K from a middle class family and spending $10K of it to provide desirable services and infrastructure and giving the other $10K to the poor to give to landowners in rent for access to those same desirable services and infrastructure somehow "solves" the problem of landowner parasitism. Such claims are not merely false and absurd but outrageous, disingenuous, and disgraceful.

The landowner qua landowner does no work, only takes from those who do.

It was already occupied. You are just makin' $#!+ up, as usual.

The land thieves you admire so much ruthlessly slaughtered the original inhabitants, who did not choose to be forcibly deprived of their means of survival. You approve and applaud the genocidal slaughter of millions of indigenous people hundreds of years ago to forcibly deprive them of their means of survival, just as you approve and applaud the current slaughter of millions of landless people every year by landowners forcibly depriving them of their means of survival. It seems that everywhere you see the merciless butchery of millions of innocent people for the unearned profit of landowners, you approve and applaud it.

Sorry, but that is just naked, smirking, Satanic evil. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

All landowning is indisputably robbery from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. There is no other objectively accurate way to characterize it.

I have already told you several times that property in the products of labor is rightful, as it does not deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have. Property in land DOES deprive everyone else of what they would otherwise have: their liberty to use the land. You just always ignore that fact and pretend I have not stated it, just as you have done again, now.

Yes: justice and prosperity.

Obviously that is just baldly false. HK and China still exist, still have no private landowning, and are still prospering because of that.

Most of them were too successful: the people who had benefited from them got complacent, forgot the source of their prosperity -- justice -- and let landowners destroy it for their own unearned profit.

I didn't say it was founded on altruism. I identified the fact that it worked beautifully, proving you objectively wrong and me objectively right.

No it doesn't, because I am concerned with injustice, not inequality. If criminals, drunkards, gamblers, drug addicts, etc. in HK end up really, really poor because of their own foolish choices, then I don't consider that a significant problem: they did it to themselves.

<silly pictures snipped>

Justice means those who choose badly fare badly, and may even end up destitute. I'm OK with that because I know I can't stop them. I'm not OK with landowners forcing people into destitution by depriving them of their rights to liberty without just compensation.

Democratically accountable government in my country is not a matter of luck; and despite its problems with China's undemocratic ruling Communist Party, HK is still a magnet for people from places like the Philippines, which has some of the most egregious landowner privilege on the planet.

 

Anyone reading this will know that however hard you dodge, you are planning on charging people to use land they already own.
There is no such thing as legal stealing, it doesn't exist.
Anyway much as I have enjoyed this little trip into your fantasy, its time to leave now you have shown your true credentials.
I think its particularly revealing when you dismiss photos of slums in Hongkong as silly pictures. Especially as you listed it as one of your successes. You don't care about people you only care about your crappy idea, the worst hypocrisy.
My work is done, enjoy having the last comment, I expect it will have any number of $##@!! to cover up points you can't actually answer.

 

<sigh> You just can't help makin' $#!+ up, can you? I propose no charge whatever for using land. You simply made that up, like everything else you have said about justice in land tenure. The only charge is for DEPRIVING EVERYONE ELSE of their liberty rights to use it, and is exactly the same whether the landholder himself uses the land or not. In exactly the same way, a baker does not charge you for eating bread, only for depriving all his other customers of their opportunity to eat it. He doesn't care if you eat it, feed it to the birds, or drop it in a mud puddle.

So I indisputably propose no charge whatever for using land. You simply made that up.

GET IT???

Of course it does, and landowning is a good example of it, as I have proved. There are other examples. Historically, kings sometimes granted privileges such as the right to levy tolls on people who used certain roads. The privilege holder did not build or maintain the roads, just demanded money, with the threat of force, from those using them. That was indisputably legalized stealing. In ancient times, "tax farmers" would pay the king a sum of money for the legal right to go around to subjects' homes with armed men and forcibly take as much money, valuables, even food, as they wanted. That was also indisputably legalized stealing. And here is proof that landowning, specifically, is nothing but legalized stealing:

THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries — or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in “rent” for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his "business" really changed? It’s all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is his "business" any different in reality now that he is a "landowner"?

Finally, would it make any difference if there were two passes owned by two bandits, or two hundred, two thousand, or two million? Being able to choose which bandit robs them would not mean the merchants were not still being robbed. How would any of those "landowners" be different from the original bandit? And for that matter, how is any landowner who charges others for permission to use what nature provided for free any different?

I hope I have. And you certainly have, too: your credential is your explicit approval of the systematic murders of millions of innocent landless people every year for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners.

They are indisputably silly pictures with zero (0) relevance. They represent a microscopic fraction of HK, you could find similar or even worse pictures of most countries, definitely including the USA, and the reason those overcrowded slums exist is that so many people from countries where land is privately owned have come to HK seeking liberty, justice, and opportunity.

It is indisputably one of the greatest success stories in history, as is post-Deng China. The fact that people living in places where landowner privilege is most egregious -- Pakistan, the Philippines, Bangladesh, etc. -- will go to extraordinary lengths to get to Hong Kong proves I am right, and that your pictures were silly, irrelevant, and disingenuous trash.

You don't care about people you only care about your privilege, the worst hypocrisy. Proof: Hong Kong does not starve anyone to death. Landowners do, by the millions every year.

I have demolished and humiliated you for every illogical, uninformed, and disingenuous claim you have made -- which is all of them. That will not be changing.

 

I'll let others decide that.
Everyone/ Anyone: Has Bridlington persuaded you he's right/

 

Bold: Agree, if you're talking about higher education.
Underlined: How?
Red: If by social programs you mean things like welfare, we already have that. It hasn't done a thing to lift people out of poverty. If you are just talking about the "can do attitude" part of your post then why not incorporate that into schools K-12?

I have often stated that we need to reform our school system. Right now it sucks the Big One (I'll leave that to your imagination). I've suggested studying the top 5-10 ranked schools in the world. Figure out what we can use and adapt to our society and implement it. We also need to make it to where schools teach things like balancing a bank account, saving money, cooking healthy for cheap, civics...you know, things that people actually need in life....People don't need football, or basketball. Think of all the time saved if we got rid of sports in K-12 and taught things that are actually needed instead. We also need to return to when Adults administered schools instead of Kids running roughshod over teachers and staff. (and that includes higher learning institutes)

 

Not once, ever. His ideas are horrifying.

 

I see. So in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," the liberty, justice and prosperity achieved in Hong Kong for over 170 years by prohibiting private ownership of land are horrifying, but two Holocausts a year committed by landowners are nothing to be concerned about.

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

 

For those who might not know, here is the liberty, justice and prosperity achieved in Hong Kong Bridlington aspires to.

 

For those Tigger2 is confident don't know -- and thus won't call him out on his disingenuous bull$#!+ -- his claims continue to be false. These appear to be decades-old photos of Kowloon Walled City, a LEGALLY CHINESE enclave within HK -- i.e., not administered by HK -- that is now a park:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowlo...:Kowloon_Walled_City_Park_Overview_201807.jpg

At the time the photos were taken China was still very poor, as Deng's geoist reforms had not yet had time to lift the country out of poverty, and Kowloon Walled City was effectively an anarchic refugee camp run by criminal gangs under the gaze of corrupt Chinese officials.

See? You just can't help yourself, can you? You have to disingenuously mislead readers in order to have anything to say at all.

As I informed you before: Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies.

 

Go on Brids, tell people Hong Kong's overcrowded poverty stricken tenements don't exist anymore. I'm enjoying a good laugh.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...lords-have-undermined-the-fight-against-covid

 

Why do you think HK is overcrowded, hmmmm? Maybe because people are fleeing to HK from countries like the Philippines and Bangladesh where private landowning robs them of their wages and condemns them to inescapable poverty toiling on the treadmill that powers the landowners' escalator?

You made that up. I never claimed there was no poverty or tenements in HK. Every country with millions of people has poverty and tenements because you can't stop people from being stupid, duh. I merely identified the fact that HK has been one of the greatest economic success stories in the history of the world for over 170 years, and it is based entirely on public ownership of all land, as is China's world-changing prosperity over the last 40 years.

Yes, well, HK is not perfect. So? Which country is? HK still has a fraction of the USA's COVID-19 death rate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data

You are destroyed.

 

you're all over the place Brids. Perfect Hong Kong with no landlords has suddenly become OK Hong Kong with greedy landlords and overcrowded tenements.
And you try and distract the issue by focusing on Covid numbers.

 

You know you have been destroyed and you have no answers, so you continue to desperately make $#!+ up:

You made that up.

You made that up.

World-leading HK that routinely tops lists of the freest and most prosperous economies on earth based on having no private landowning.

Like all countries with millions of people. And....?

Huh??? That's what YOU did!!!

 

Do you think people can't read your words. Enough of your rubbish, you just shamelessly change what you say post to post, people can see that.

 

You did blame extortion victims for being victims of extortion. So if I was bringiton, I would take this as a good sign.

 

I hope they can. Unfortunately, people like you consistently dash such hopes.

What people can see, and as I prove over and over again, is that it is YOU who change what I say and then falsely attribute your fabrications to me.

 

Yeah sure.
Those wonderful folks in Hong Kong where nobody owns land and there are no evil landlords.
Well a few,
Quite a few,
And conditions are dreadful, but still never mind.
Dear oh dear this is such fun.

 

So the intractibly poor of HK (and other nations with slums) are "stupid"?

Lucky you don't do any of that victim blaming you hate so much.

 

Extortion is against the law.

Meantime, nations which harbour slums and slum dwellers, do so because they are not capitalist democracies as we understand that. The poor in the lowest echelons of those societies simply do not have access to the opportunities (to escape poverty) that we have. Things like free universal education, free universal healthcare, public libraries, the freedom to move around as we see fit - to follow our ambitions or needs, reward for effort, meritocracy, clean water and ample food to fuel us as we work towards escaping poverty, etc etc.

These slum dwellers could work their behinds off (most do) and never spend a cent on luxuries or vices (most don't) and it still won't make a difference. A poor Westerner, when applying the same amount of effort, will not be able to AVOID escaping poverty.

 

No, only the poor of HK and China, because they are the only ones guaranteed not to have been forced into poverty by the rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic private landowners you claim are not privileged.

There are victims in HK, of course; but they are victims of crime, of the Chinese Communist Party, of ill fortune, etc., not of private landowners. And unlike you, I don't blame them for being victims.

 

I'm sure there are evil landlords everywhere. They just have less privilege in HK because they do not own the land. They are incomparably worse in places like Pakistan, the Philippines, Honduras, Bangladesh, etc., where land is almost all privately owned and landowner privilege is most entrenched.

No, just a few.

Yeah, never mind the FACT that conditions are so "dreadful" in HK that people in countries like the above -- where private landowners are free to enslave them -- are desperate to get to HK....

Dear oh dear this is such fun.

 

No it's not. Extortion is often enabled by law, as in the cases I already described of tax farming, road toll patents, slave deeds and land deeds. Here, again, is the proof that private landowning is nothing but extortion enabled by law:

THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries — or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in “rent” for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his "business" really changed? It’s all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is his "business" any different in reality now that he is a "landowner"?

Finally, would it make any difference if there were two passes owned by two bandits, or two hundred, two thousand, or two million? Being able to choose which bandit robs them would not mean the merchants were not still being robbed. How would any of those "landowners" be different from the original bandit? And for that matter, how is any landowner who charges others full market value for permission to use what nature provided for free any different?

No, that's just more of your usual garbage contrary to objective fact. Slums and slum dwellers are commonplace in capitalist countries whether they are democratic or not, except to the extent that their governments intervene in the economy through minimum wages, welfare, housing subsidies, labor standards laws, union monopoly privileges, publicly funded education, health care and pensions, etc. to rescue the landless from enslavement by private landowners.

In capitalist economies, the opportunities to escape poverty are almost all owned by the privileged, whom the rest must pay full market value just for permission to access those opportunities.

"Free"?? Please. Have a little respect for your readers. People are required to pay landowners full market value just for permission to access publicly funded education, health care, libraries, and all the other desirable services and infrastructure their taxes already paid for once.

As long as we pay landowners full market value for their permission...

Right: the privileged being legally entitled to take the reward for the producers' effort...

You misspelled plutocracy: rule by and for the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich.

For permission to access which we must pay landowners full market value....

To fuel our toil on the treadmill that powers the escalator of the privileged, you mean...

[
That is certainly true in capitalist countries whose governments do not rescue them from enslavement by landowners. It is certainly not true in HK or China -- which might be why people in landowner-ruled capitalist countries such as those mentioned above are clamoring to get into HK and China.

As long as his government rescues him from enslavement by landowners as explained above.

 

The only thing that saved me is buying a house.