I know that you are. I also know that you have falsely claimed to support your statements but have not done so. I know that you cannot provide a quote from your "source" that actually supports your claims about what it says. I therefore think readers can make their own judgements about you and your claims.
You are fully aware you’ve been proven incorrect. But you’re used to it. Georgism is unworkable, and you know that as well.
You are aware that I have identified and refuted your clangers, but you have never been able to point to one of mine. As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
When did that ever happen? Wrong. Intelligence is not the same as survival, as bacteria prove. What an absurd load of garbage. Most wealthy people have never produced a single worthwhile thought, while low-born geniuses like Faraday, Berzelius, Turing, etc. revolutionized the world. Too bad modern medicine and technology can't be supported by people pursuing a low-impact, self-sufficient lifestyle. I am making statements that are accurate, and cover all cases.
No, I know that I have not. No, it's never happened on this subject. No, I am aware that it is not only workable, but is provably a more practical, just, efficient and beneficial system of exclusive land tenure and public revenue than any other tried to date. BTW, readers have noticed that you constantly claim George has been proven wrong, but are too afraid to offer any actual arguments to that effect because you know that if you do, you will be demolished and humiliated.
Of course you know you have. You also know this is false. You are fully aware that it is not workable, and that there is no georgist society as it is completely unworkable. But you and everyone else reading this know georgism is abject nonsense, has been proven to be h workable, and is just as batshit crazy as hard core libertarianism.
I know that you have not essayed a single argument that I am incorrect, nor will you ever be doing so, because you know that you will be demolished and humiliated if you try it.
You are of course aware that you are incorrect. You are aware I’ve given you several citations showing you to be incorrect.
<yawn> I am aware that the opposite is the case. The fact that something hasn't been achieved yet is not an argument that it can't be or shouldn't be. There is also no society that has eliminated bedbugs. That doesn't mean it is impossible or should not be attempted. <yawn> That must be why Nobel laureates in economics have endorsed it.... <yawn> Blah, blah, blah. Your claims continue to be an unsupported waste of time, as you are aware that if you attempt to support them with arguments, you will be demolished and humiliated, as you have been on every occasion to date.
No. I am aware that you have never provided any supporting evidence for your claims, which is why you have not been able to provide any QUOTES FROM THE TEXTS that you claim support your claims.
You are of course aware that you are incorrect. You are aware I’ve given you several citations showing you to be incorrect.
Apparently it does to our President who has no clue what Socialism is but thinks it will fire up his ignorant of history base.
I am aware that you have done no such thing, as you are also aware. You have offered only links to material that does not support your claims, and you have been -- and will always be -- unable actually to QUOTE from the texts you cited any passage that supports your claims.
You are aware that it has never been proven false, and has in fact been endorsed by Nobel laureates in economics.
That is a bizarre claim. How could collective ownership of the means of production NOT be political? How could the means of production be collectively managed but by a political process?
Does it? He's not my Prez. I'm not American. But it can't be denied that a huge proportion of the populace don't understand that collectivism is simply economics, and can be ANY politic.
Collectivists exist on the Left and the Right .. and everywhere in between. The majority of humanity practices collectivism, and that covers a planet's worth of different politics. What you're talking about is replacing 'private' corporate ownership of gross capitalism, with state or 'group' ownership of gross capitalism. Exactly the same beast, with a different name. And nothing at all to do with collectivism - which is an economic model predicated upon strength in number.
No I'm not. I'm explaining the correct meanings of English words to you. State ownership of the means of production is socialism, not capitalism. Period. That is literally nonsense. How is state ownership not predicated on strength in numbers?
