and also because getting an education is a lot easier than being a very productive highly paid worker
Econ 101: labor becomes more valuable when new inventions are supplied. This is how we got from stone age to here. Do you understand?
I.e., pay a landowner full market value just for PERMISSION to access economic opportunity... LOL! How many of the millions of Manhattanites are making significantly more than they are paying landowners just for PERMISSION to make that "crap-ton of money," hmmmmmmmmm? Having a right to pay someone else full market value for permission to exercise your right to liberty is not the same as actually HAVING a right to liberty. Ask any slave.
Econ 401: No it doesn't, because the landowner takes all production in excess of what labor can produce on marginal land, and new inventions often push the margin outward onto even worse land, while patents ensure the new invention is kept scarce. That is why new inventions haven't done squat to help poor people who don't have their rights or government assistance. Read "Progress and Poverty," and try to get at least a minimal understanding of economics. No, champ, we got from the Stone Age to here by being at liberty to use others' knowledge and ideas, and by government rescuing the landless from enslavement by landowners.
Such claims are false, absurd, and laughable. More absurdity. Cheap credit and the resulting asset price inflation are created by privately owned commercial banks issuing debt money in order to charge interest on it. The value of land is derived from work, all right: the work of government employees and contractors who provide the desirable services and infrastructure that make the land more advantageous, and the work of taxpayers who wages are confiscated to provide that subsidy to landowners. Land value is nothing but the market's estimate of how big that subsidy will be: much more the landowner will be legally entitled to take from the community by owning the land than he will pay in taxes on it. Which are comparably expensive, because whoever owns them will get to pocket the subsidy. No, that's completely false; land value is completely independent of anything the owner does. Whatever you may have added is IMPROVEMENT value, not LAND value. GET IT??? Landowning has nothing to do with the free market, because it's ownership of others' rights to liberty. That is a slave market.
I.e., pay a landowner in advance for permission to exercise my right to liberty -- and for ownership of everyone else's liberty right to use that land. Either way, I have to pay the owner of my right to liberty to use that land for permission to exercise it.
Do you expect it to be free? I own my properties (outright, no money owed) because I worked my arse off and went without for years. No one gave them to me as a political gesture. My 'liberty' was my problem, no one else's.
So be a slave master, if you don't like being a slave. It's not as though there's a third option in a capitalist democracy (ie, the only kind of nation you're prepared to live in).
I'm aware that capitalism removes my right to liberty and gives it to the privileged as their private property, leaving us with the options of being either slave or both slave and master. I would be quite prepared to live in a free society where the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor were respected. In fact, I am at this very moment working to enable such a society to exist.
No, that's just some disingenuous nonsense you made up because you can't answer what I actually said. I want the right to either be left alone by them, or be justly compensated for what they take from me.
That's what it was naturally for billions of years until greedy, evil parasites realized that if they could just own it, they could steal everything from everyone else. Just as many people worked and went without to buy slaves. Sorry, no amount of work and sacrifice can make ownership of others' rights to liberty rightful. If your right to liberty is your problem and no one else's, you don't have a right to liberty. The whole POINT of rights is that they ARE everyone else's problem.
The current owners of my right to liberty, who demand that I pay them full market value just for PERMISSION to exercise that right.
Like I said, it's not as though there's a third option. You want to live in a First World Capitalist Democracy? Then join the game and play according to your lights. Don't want to be a slave master? Then you clearly want to be a slave ... because they're your choices. Keep in mind that even as a collectivist (aka, communist), you will still be required to do the work of the master, but will at least enjoy the benefits of 'liberty' in that as a joint land holder you are at no one's mercy but your own and your collective's. Are you prepared for that? Because that is actually a 'third option' - but only for those who understand and fully accept that there are no free lunches. I don't think you are prepared for it .. because you talk as though these things should be given to you, for nothing. That attitude is exactly what enslaves you.
I suspect our young (at heart?) friend imagines that he/she should be gifted property just for existing, because working for it is no fun.
There's never a better option until someone creates it. As long as it's the best option on offer. That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer something better. I've taken steps to mitigate the harm done to me by forcible removal of my rights, but I am not an enthusiastic participant in the slavery system. Making oneself the beneficiary of injustice is not the same as being a productive, contributing member of the community. I'm not a collectivist, communist or socialist. You are objectively wrong about that. Are you willing to learn from your error? I'm not a socialist, so your hypothetical is irrelevant. There are free lunches for the privileged, who get something for nothing. Everyone's rights should be given to them for nothing. That's what makes them rights and not optional extras.
