Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

In the same sense that slaves could be owned: by government-issued and -enforced legal privilege.

That is precisely how it is determined, and always has been. There is no other source of private land titles.

That is indisputably false as a matter of objective physical fact. Ownership of privileges like land titles, bank licenses, IP monopolies, broadcast spectrum allocations, oil and mineral rights, etc. is always indisputably determined by government fiat. There is no other possible source of such ownership.

But not about that.

 

It is greedy, privileged parasites and governments working on their behalf who initiate the aggression, and I will thank you to remember it.

 

You mean like the privileged, who have an infinite number of reasons why your rights to liberty should be their private property....?

 

So private arbitration is NOT limited to only a fraction of cases?

I'm not picking up what you're laying down. You're saying that a gang with a monopoly on violence is necessary? I don't see how or why.

 

I find you boring.

 

If you did, you would not be reading and responding to my posts.

 

Good one.

I disagree that the state should be the sole, monopoly owner of all the land. I oppose monopolies. I would rather the land be owned by millions of citizens.

 

An administrator in trust is not an owner, as I have informed you many times. Do you absurdly claim that the state owns the atmosphere because it administers how we use it?

Land is always a monopoly.

As long as you are one of them....?

It doesn't matter how many citizens own land, each of them is inherently a monopolist. And history proves that even minute subdivision of landowning offers no relief whatever from landowner rent seeking. You just refuse to know the facts of economics that explain why.

 

In trust? In trust for whom?

I don't think you're using the term "monopoly" correctly.

No not really. Not as long as I'm one of "them" (are you going to make them wear some kind of armband?)

You seem ignorant of the definition of monopoly. Perhaps you can provide a definition of what you're talking about?

 

Since you entirely missed the point of the questions, I'll take your responses and condense them into two statements: assumption, and government.

My response to that is: Bad methodology, and no thank you, I can do better for myself.

 

I didn't miss the point of anything; and I bothered to answer your questions on education, even though your began your post by asking when Bezos last received welfare....

Note: the US already has returned to pre-GD levels of inequality, with the results coming home to roost......such that a politician who promises single payer health, debt-free tertiary education, and a GND job guarantee, is in the running for the presidency.

But you simply claiming bad methodology......I accept your concession. Your closed-mindedness is noted

 

Private arbitration IS limited to only a fraction of cases, by definition - that's your mistake. That's why I called you up on omitting the word "private", when you asked "why is arbitration limited to only a few cases".

OTOH, arbitration applies to law governing the whole community....notice how your argument comes back to Maggie's ridiculous assertion: "there is no such thing as society".

So the answer, re the limitation of 'private arbitration' is: because the "human condition" requires government to avoid anarchy; that's not an opinion, it's objective biological and psychological fact, explained here, again:

Humans have both conscious and unconscious motivation.

Someone described this as "acting 90% out of emotion and 10% out of rational thought (via the "thinking brain" in the cerebral cortex, which spends most of its capacity justifying the ego's self-interestedness).

I describe it as acting out of BOTH conscious co-operation (equivalent to Ted's voluntary co-operation/agreement in his Anarchist fantasy), AND unconscious competition* based in instinct, which if left unchecked by government, will result in anarchy (with a small 'a')

*Note: all competitions need a referee, to avoid domination of one self-interested individual or group by another self-interested individual or group.

You will have to consider these points sooner or later...…..

 

Why is it limited to only a fraction of cases?

 

Yes, you obviously did miss the point if you didn't understand the Bezos question. It's rather simple.

And the politician has an extremely limited following. Anyone with an understanding of economics and how it applies to businesses, knows what damage could be done to the US economy with his platform.

Closed minded, that's a new one. I guess you would think that someone who understands reality by applying logic and common sense is closed minded, It doesn't involve giving people things that they haven't earned, nor providing people the means to falsely increase their means economically and socially (for those who care) at the expense of other people.

 

The people who hold it democratically accountable.

But I am. Land is a canonical example of monopoly because every parcel is unique, its supply cannot be increased, and it makes no difference if one person or a million people own it.

Of course. You like injustice as long as you are one of its beneficiaries rather than one of its victims.

Disgraceful.

As each land parcel is unique and supply cannot be increased, each landowner is a monopolist. This is inherent in the economics of fixed supply.

 

Yeah, not on board with the state monopoly owning all land. I prefer distributed ownership.

 

No. That is false. You are aware of the fact that government administers possession and use of land in any case because that is what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. If government discharges that function so as to forcibly remove people's rights to liberty and give them to private landowners as their private property, thus subsidizing those private landowners at the involuntary expense of everyone else, you disingenuously call that, "distributed ownership." But if government discharges the exact same function of land administration in order to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to use land, you disingenuously call that, "state monopoly ownership." Simple.

Your false claim was disproved, so you just ignored the disproof and repeated your false claim. Simple.

 

Are you're still advocating the initiation of violence against your neighbor? I can't get on board with your sociopathy.

 

my original post to another poster said:

"Because eg if Bezos and a sufficiently large cohort of similarly rewarded - by the "invisible hand" market, pay the same tax as you and me, the economy will collapse.

Why? At present, the top 20% have 90% of all wealth, that's unsustainable unless taxes can pay for the public services we all require, eg infrastructure (of which the US requires urgent upgrade), debt free tertiary education, and guaranteed above poverty employment.

Otherwise poverty, alienation and criminality will be an unfortune part of reality n the community.

"You are living in poverty, your neighbourhoods are like war zones, your schools and hospitals are broken.....",

To which you replied "When did Bezos apply for SNAP..."

A total non sequitur and also nonsensical; non sequitur because the original point concerned rates of tax according to ability to pay, and nonsensical, because welfare is only required by the unemployed or working poor.

"Extremely limited"? We will see

Nonsense. A financial transaction tax would IMPROVE the efficiency of the US economy, because the parasitic OTC and fancy derivatives-trading 'industries' (purely shuffling money in pursuit of a quick buck) would be encouraged to seek more productive investment....and avoid the possibility of the money shufflers causing another GFC as well.

Note the underlined.....like the GFC when Paulson pocketed $2 billion as millions were booted out of their homes...

And you won't even begin to look at MMT, as Keynes predicted:

"As Keynes wrote, "[Lerner's] argument (- about debt and deficits -) is impeccable, but heaven help anyone who tries [to] put it across to the plain man at this stage of the evolution of our ideas." (Keynes to Meade, April 1943). ... From 1944 on, Lerner began to move away from pure economic theory and towards economic policy."

But MMT's time has come, with Stephanie Kelton being named among the 50 most influential economic thinkers in 2016.

 

(like I said, you are confused by Maggie's nonsense about no such thing as society)

So let's see if we can overcome your confusion:

"private", ie applicable to agreement by specific individuals or subsets of individuals, compared with "public" , ie applicable through the necessary universal acceptance of rule of law, to avoid anarchy*......
*eg, some don't accept taxation at all, but rule of law has a mesage for them….
(you are free to endeavour to change the law, of course).

because the "human condition" requires government to avoid anarchy; that's not an opinion, it's objective biological and psychological fact, explained here, again:

Humans have both conscious and unconscious motivation.

Someone described this as "acting 90% out of emotion and 10% out of rational thought (via the "thinking brain" in the cerebral cortex, which spends most of its capacity justifying the ego's self-interestedness).

I describe it as acting out of BOTH conscious co-operation (equivalent to Ted's voluntary co-operation/agreement in his Anarchist fantasy), AND unconscious competition* based in instinct, which if left unchecked by government, will result in anarchy (with a small 'a')

*Note: all competitions need a referee, to avoid domination of one self-interested individual or group by another self-interested individual or group.

You will have to consider these points sooner or later...…..

 

I don't agree with your position that some people have a right to subjugate their fellow man.

 

Neither do I, so....we agree......

Note: acceptance of rule of law , to avoid anarchy, is NOT equivalent to "some people have a right to subjugate their fellow man".

I notice you dare not even start to address my proof that government and rule of law are necessary to avoid anarchy.

Where's Ted when you need him?

 

Well I wouldn't call it a proof. I'd call it more of a bald assertion.

 

Can you identify which of my points is bald assertion? Here it is again, for your convenience.

The "human condition" requires government to avoid anarchy; that's not an opinion, it's objective biological and psychological fact, explained here, again:

Humans have both conscious and unconscious motivation.

Someone described this as "acting 90% out of emotion and 10% out of rational thought (via the "thinking brain" in the cerebral cortex, which spends most of its capacity justifying the ego's self-interestedness).

I describe it as acting out of BOTH conscious co-operation (equivalent to Ted's voluntary co-operation/agreement in his Anarchist fantasy), AND unconscious competition* based in instinct, which if left unchecked by government, will result in anarchy (with a small 'a')

*Note: all competitions need a referee, to avoid domination of one self-interested individual or group by another self-interested individual or group.

 

Sure. This part:

That is the bald assertion part.