The Capitalist System Is Decaying Because Of Its Own Contradictions

Can you provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quotation to that effect? Of course not. I have made no such assertion. I have simply pointed out that to secure the equal individual rights of all, government sometimes administers individuals' use of things that no one can own. I gave the examples of units of measure, the atmosphere, the oceans, and standards of medical practice. You have to explain why the same sort of government administration WITHOUT OWNERSHIP cannot apply to land. You have not done so, nor will you ever be doing so.

 

It is when the content you are asking for is not the subject. If you think Georgism or communism is the subject, explain why. Don't disingenuously pretend it is somehow my job to explain it.

It is obvious evasion.

What are you going to change the subject to?

Capitalists pretend land (natural resources) is capital (products of labor devoted to production) to justify stealing land; socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital. Same error, opposite reasons.

You will now pretend that self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil -- the facts that capital is produced by labor and land is not -- are not "economic sense."

 

I merely asked for content. I know that is a strange proposition to you mind you.

This is ignorant. Economic analysis, used to support capitalism, makes no such claim. Indeed, I referred to Georgism deliberately to indicate that. More orthodox analysis makes a clear distinction between land, capital and labour.

This is also a cretinous claim. Refer me to one socialist that makes this claim. Provide the full reference!

I will do the obvious. Laugh at your silliness. There's no economic merit in your comment. You even attacked my efforts to ensure you had one! Put that right (if you can)

 

You have said that the community should control who may use land. This is what ownership means: having control of who may use a thing.

So how did the community come to own all the land?

 

No, it does not. You are just objectively incorrect. That will continue to happen as long as you presume to dispute with me. Control is just one of FOUR defining characteristics of ownership. A trustee, for example, controls who may use the trust assets, but does not own them. That proves you are objectively incorrect, as I have proved you to be on every point you have presumed to dispute with me to date. That will continue to happen as long as you presume to dispute with me.

It is government's JOB to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. It CANNOT fulfill that function in a society above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic-herding stages of production unless it administers possession and use of land. All governments administer possession and use of land because that is what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. The only question is, will it discharge that function to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all, or will it instead only serve the narrow financial interests of a greedy, privileged, parasitic minority of landowners?

 

A trustee acts as the agent of the owner. A trustee is not the owner. Only the owner has the exclusive right to control the use of a thing, and the owner can delegate certain responsibilities to a trustee.

Interesting opinion. What's your supporting argument?

Not exactly. The state is the corporation that claims the legitimate right to violence in a given territory.

The question is will the state support the protection of property rights or will the state violate property rights.

Earlier, you said that the community owns all the land. Did you mean the community, or did you mean the state. I ask because your most recent post didn't mention the word community.

 

No. You disingenuously pretended that I had not already provided it.

Try not to spew so much boring, disingenuous filth.

It is fact.

Economic analysis cannot be used to support capitalism. Neoclassical economics is used to support capitalism, but it is not economic analysis. It ignores the most salient facts of economics and substitutes invalid definitions and false and absurd assumptions.

But it doesn't. Georgism, as far as I understand it, does not support capitalism. So you are just disingenuously bloviating.

But now you are disingenuously pretending that Georgism, which cannot be called orthodox analysis, does not make that distinction, when it clearly does. Perhaps you are using the word, "orthodox" in an unorthodox way, to refer to classical rather than modern mainstream neoclassical economics?

It is fact.

All socialists make that claim every time they conflate land and capital by referring to "the means of production." I certainly don't need to provide any "references" for use of that expression by socialists.

So you have done exactly as I expected and predicted you would do: disingenuously pretended that I did not say what I did say.

There is more economic merit in my comment than in everything you have ever said, written, or thought.

Your only "effort" was your pretense that I had not said what I did say.

It was already right.

 

Do you mean to copy Hitler Stalin and Mao?

 

Which proves me right and you wrong, as usual:

The trustee is the one who controls the trust and its assets. There is no one else, no "owner" but the trust itself, which cannot act but through the trustee. You are again proved objectively wrong.

Societies where people have secure rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor outperform and outcompete societies where they don't. This fact is reflected in Jefferson's formulation of the role of government, expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, exactly.

Interesting opinion. What's your supporting argument? And how can there be a corporation without a state to recognize and regulate it?

No. More fundamentally, will it secure people's rights to life and liberty, or presume to remove them by force, without just compensation, and make them into other people's legal property? To secure the valid rights of its citizens, a state must "violate" the wrongful "property rights" of those who claim to own others' rights to life and liberty, as slave owners, landowners, etc. do.

No, you are aware of the fact that I said it could not, and that I refuted your claim by the examples of the atmosphere, the oceans, standards of measurement, etc., which neither individuals nor the community can own, but whose use the community administers for the general welfare.

The community's interests require defense against the greed of the evil, and the evil of the greedy, such as slave owners and landowners. The state is the community's agent of defense against the violence of the evil and greedy.

 

Do you mean to constantly make a fool of yourself?

 

yes govt is sovereign authority over country but govt is also primary source of evil in human history
This is why our genius Founders strictly limited govt and why we became greatest country in human history. They made your libcommie Nazi idea about govt killing millions to steal their private property illegal just as they made Nazis communist monarchical big govt schemes illegal, and for exactly the same reason.

 

you said you wanted govt to kill millions of Americans to take over their private property. Isn't his how Stalin Killed 60 million?

 

if so why are you so afraid to present your best example??

 

So how did the community acquire ownership of all the land?

 

are you the only libcommie on earth to equate land owning and slave owning or is their another person?