The problem of Capitalism

There is no other way to do it. Land is always naturally a monopoly, and government's job is to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. It is IMPOSSIBLE to administer secure, exclusive land tenure except via a monopoly on force. IMPOSSIBLE.

So you favor feudalism: landowning without government. That's your prerogative. Lots of people favor evil over good. Don't beat yourself up over it. There's lots worse things a guy could do. I might even be able to think of one if I put my mind to it.

 

Not one of which you have ever been able to refute...

Nope. Never happened. The examples you claimed have all been demolished.

You seem to be the only one still pushing that claim, as I have refuted it repeatedly, comprehensively, and conclusively.

 

So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," owning a chicken is in no way similar to owning a duck because one is a chicken and the other is a duck???

You are a joke.

 

False. Market failure conditions such as natural monopoly are more efficient in government hands. Government monopoly water supply systems in Britain supplied water more reliably and at a lower price than Thatcher's privatized ones. Same goes for government monopoly electric power utilities in the USA. Government monopoly health care systems in OECD countries are ALL superior in efficiency to the USA's private one.

Capitalism impoverishes and kills billions. Socialism just kills them at a higher average rate.

False dichotomy fallacy. Being against capitalism doesn't mean being for socialism.

 

What an eloquent confession that you know you are wrong.

 

It's tens of millions of monopolists. Land is a canonical example of monopoly because each parcel is unique, and supply is fixed. The price of each parcel is therefore exactly the same if one person owns it as if tens of millions do.

 

Longshot:
If the land is bought it is rightfully owned

Premise:
Buying automatically determines rightful ownership

Premise logically results in:
1. If the chattel slave is bought it is rightfully owned
2. If the stolen goods are bough they are rightfully owned
etc.

Purchase can be a way of obtaining ownership, but it cannot morally justify the ownership of whatever was bought.

You can either give up the the premise and change your argument for justifying property in land, or be known as someone whose moral basis for property implicitly justifies chattel slavery, and thus would have no logically consistent way to deny despicable scum such property rights in your system.

Irrelevant to my reductio ad absurdum refutation of your justification for property in land.

Because it is the community who makes the location beneficial and sets up the system so that Longshot can have exclusive tenure the land. Interestingly though, why do you even care about the community having a "monopoly" over it?

Is only the land interesting to the landowner that is economically and socially advantageous because of what government and the community provide? There is plenty of very cheap land in the middle of nowhere. Why not move there, hm?

The royal libertarian wants the benefits from the community but merely tries to find convenient excuses in order to justify not having to pay for what he is taking.

 

That is objectively false. It has worked beautifully everywhere it has ever been tried, to the extent that it has been tried. Japan went from being a poor, stagnant, feudal backwater to an advanced industrial power in a single generation by getting 60%-80% of all government revenue from land rents.

Denial ain't just a river in Africa....

 

Are you trying to say that their material condition -- forcibly stripped of the fruits of their labor without just compensation, subject to torture, starvation and agonizing death by the owners of their rights to liberty -- was meaningfully different from that of slaves?

 

You have already seen that strawman fallacy demolished many times. Our remote ancestors lived that way, but an economy above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding stages requires secure, exclusive land tenure. The proposal is that instead of forcibly stripping everyone of their rights to liberty and making those rights into the private property of landowners, those who wish to exclude others from more than their equal share of the advantageous land should make just compensation to the community of those whom they exclude from it, in return for secure, exclusive tenure and the benefit of the publicly created economic advantages exclusive use of the location confers on its user.

 

Whoever is willing and able to pay the most compensation to the community of those whom he deprives of it.

 

<yawn>

A man -- let's call him Massa -- owns a natural spring in the middle of the desert (I do not believe you are so dishonest as to claim that though land can be owned, a natural spring cannot be owned). Like land and the earth's atmosphere, the spring is in no way similar to a human being. One day a man dying of thirst -- call him Longshot -- stumbles in from the desert, and makes for the spring to slake his parched throat. But as he kneels to partake of the cool, sparkling liquid, he hears a revolver being cocked behind his head, and a low, quiet, sibilant voice informs him, "Uh-uh. I know what you're thinkin', punk. Is the owner of this here spring going to charge me six days' labor for a drink of water, or only five? And to tell the truth, in all this heat I haven't quite totaled up the rent myself. But bein' as it's 44 miles to the next waterhole, which might as well be the other side of the world, and I'd as soon blow your head clean off for trespassin' on my land, you gotta ask yourself a question: Do I feel thirsty today? Well, do ya, slave?"

 

Businessman A does not permit them to. Can't you read?

And FYI, calling the exorbitant, prohibitive expense of such tunneling, especially multiple levels of it, "No problem" is just asinine and disingenuous GARBAGE, sorry.

 

It's called, "the right to liberty." Our remote ancestors enjoyed it for millions of years. It is stripping people of it without making just compensation that requires the moral justification, which has thus far never been supplied.

 

False. People won't pay more than the land rent, as it would be a guaranteed loss.

FYI, HK actually DOES rent out land to users, and they CAN'T set whatever price they want.

So you have been proved flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective physical fact.

<yawn> Is that what you imagine they do in HK....?

Give your head a shake.

<yawn> Please try not to make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. I am here to school you on the facts of economics and history, not the other way around. Clear?

 

I just proved to you that when someone needs land to live -- which everyone does -- owning land and owning a human being are equivalent. Your denials can't alter the fact that you have been proved objectively incorrect.

 

Like owning land.

Already proved irrelevant multiple times.

It's the only way to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all. There is no other possible way.

 

Longshot obviously can't reconcile his property rights views with his claimed dislike of monopolies.

 

With respect also: I suggest seriously you take a course in Economics 101.

I teach one, but you might find the commuting distance exasperating ...

 

The theories regarding inflation have consequences, yes. You are saying nothing at all "new" there.

You seem to think as well that there is only one of two options - either Capitalism or Socialism. This attitude is wrongheaded. Because there can be mutual combinations.

Which is called Social Democracy, and has long since replaced "socialism", which exists nowhere in the world (except North Korea).

It is the institution of social-objectives in a capitalist system. Capitalism means fundamentally the common use of capital as a means of exchange for goods and labor. (Of course, if you would like to return to barter, then that's your business. Many countries do: farmers sometimes exchange their crops for meat in the lesser developed economies.)

Capitalism is thus not as much a political doctrine as it is simply "any economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state". Specifically:

Thus, even in a Social Democracy, capitalism can be and is the unique means of exchange in a Market Economy and the above definition of Social Democracy, capitalism is perfectly compatible. Social Democracies include as objectives programs by which the state interferes in capitalist-markets to assure the provision of key-elements in a "fair and equitable" manner. (Meaning specifically healthcare, schooling and housing.)

The "consequences" are that life is better for major populations within any Market Economy. Which is the intended desired-result of any Social Democracy.

Try it! You might like it ... !

 

If your class is where I think it is, I would not mind getting a room. I have taken classes in Economics. They did not help me become a millionaire. I did it by taking careful chances in a capitalist system.

In my business I have met other business people who came here from all over the world. That includes Japan, England, Germany, France.... I liked to ask them these questions

Question 1: How do you like the United States?
Answer: Love it

Question 2: What do you like best about the US?
Answer: Opportunity

Question 3: Ever think about going home?
Answer: Never

 

No, the wealthy aren't buying land for speculative purposes, they are buying land for the space, for status, for the privacy, and for the control of that land. They have hundreds of millions, maybe billions, in assets, they aren't buying land becuase interest rates are low or for non existent tax breaks. The wealthy can afford to pay any amount of tax on that land , ma and pa next door can't afford to pay as much, their income must come from the land and not from a hedge fund or Wall Street investment, or corporate endeavor.

If only the land were taxed and not the improvements there wouldnt be enough tax revenue to maintain the current level of infrastructure services. Most of the value in any parcel of property is in the improvements. In the house, the buildings, the 20 story apartment building, the factories, the water source, the sewer, and the multitude of other improvements people make to improve the land.

Are there examples of land rent recovery?

 

Refuted everything you’ve posted. Comparing owning a human to owning land makes you look silly.

 

It’s mind blowing that you don’t see how retarded your statement is.

 

It’s never been implemented, anywhere, because it is unworkable. It completely defies human nature.