Any advance in understanding is hard for common minds to grasp: they cannot deal with concepts they are not used to. That is correct: it doesn't. The land is still not capital. There. Fixed it for you. So if you purchase a license to steal -- which is what a land title is, in essence -- that somehow makes it not stealing when you take my stuff without permission or making just compensation, because I had the chance to do the same?? When you purchase a slave, that's fair because you paid the market price, and everyone else had the chance to do the same, including the slave? Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that... The only difference between owning a slave and owning land is that when you own a slave, you remove all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you remove one of all persons' rights. See how evil your view is, when stripped to its essentials? Like a slave, or a license to steal.
So you made some $#!+ up to make yourself seem productive, and it still didn't work. Landowning abrogates others' rights without just compensation. Nothing you do or say can ever alter that fact. And...? People used to say the same about slaves. False. He has said nothing of the sort. You are just makin' $#!+ up. And...? Unlike owning land, that didn't violate anyone's rights. False. False. Ridiculous garbage. Yes, there is: gains from production are earned, gains from privilege are not. Land is not produced by its owner or by any human effort, and its value is not produced by the landowner who gets to keep it. There is self-evidently a massive injustice there, an injustice that causes almost all the world's poverty, but you refuse to see it. No, you aren't. Yeah, they might be exercising their rights to liberty to earn a living, instead of working to support a landowning parasite. No you didn't. You just proved you have no arguments. LOL! By that absurd and evil "logic," a hitman creates jobs, because he might "parlay" his fee for killling his victim into a loan for another business. Or which they don't. Developers do just fine building on leased public land -- such as all the developed land in Hong Kong. But the landowner doesn't. He just charges the developer for permission to create that commerce. See above. You are claiming that money obtained by theft can somehow become earned money through being devoted to some business purpose. It can't. Yep. Every claim you make is false. You know that is false. YOU KNOW that the land would still exist if no one were able to own it, and YOU KNOW that people lived for millions of years using, building on, and even employing others on land no one could own. You have been refuted, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple. We know you are trying to rationalize, justify and excuse greed, privilege, injustice, and parasitism. That's pretty suggestive.
It doesn't stop me from repeatedly attempting to explain to you that land is just as salable and tradable as any other asset however - but it shortly will. Moot. It is collateral as an asset like any other capital. Non sequitur, as most of your posts are. Non sequitur. You cannot presume a statement as fact which is the premise in question. Non sequitur. What gives you the right to own ANYTHING made of natural resources, and why would land be any different? By definition, if I freely acquire land by exchanging currency, it is not stealing. By your stupid definition, you're stealing air by breathing. A slave is a sentient being. I know it is your wont, but resist the urge to reduce this debate to abject stupidity.
Idiot point. I used an example to make a point. How could you think that such a point was to demonstrate productivity to your ilk, when any use of land by an owner of that land is denied by you as productive regardless? Your view is stupid. Idiot point. By exchanging my wealth for land, I am contributing to the velocity of our currency, and promoting trade - and that is just the first level of incentivized productivity. Non-sequitur. You're conflating natural resources with humanity, which is bat(*)(*)(*)(*) stupidity. You should be more careful than to defend a presumption of someone who is not supposed to be (but clearly is) your sock puppet. You have never demonstrated any violation of rights. We're done here. Next you'll be responding to every focking word.
"A rigged "market" ... Taxcutter says: A market based on millions and millions of voluntary transactions. Take your socialist tripe elsewhere.
You guys can have all the anal sex you want, the Republicans are not coming to get you. Or human history for the last 8000 years. One of the two. Marriage between partners who can have children and families pre dated any churches with members today. Yes exactly, the violent act of aborting, not your own body of course, but the body of another human is done where they keep the poison and sharp tools. You wont find that in a church. What is your point? Is gay marriage and dead babies the only things that matter in this world? What if you could kill all the babies you wanted, and you can marry all the dudes you wanted....would you have any other reasons not to vote Republican?
Your Mother Jones link shows only that the rich are rich. We knew that. The nub is your contention that this wealth is "unconscionable." Why is that? It's closer to the truth to say that as our economy becomes more and more idea-based, those who create, plan, and organize great enterprises, and provide the capital which enables them, account for more and more of the wealth created. Most productivity growth now comes from capital investment in innovation and technology, not from white or blue collar labor. That's what has undone the middle class. Wealth can now be created without them, or at least many of them. They lost their jobs when employers figured out they weren't needed. They aren't even needed as consumers, because products can be easily exported. (The Obama/Bush weak dollar policy has caused exports to soar.) The only answer I see lies in abandoning the old-fashioned model of passive "workers" reporting to 9-to-5 jobs at the "plant" and negotiating with "management" to get more for doing less, and its replacement with an economy of many small cutting-edge businesses in which everyone takes responsibility and shares in results. This new economy accepts rapid change and assumes that everyone acquires new knowledge and skills. Everyone becomes, in effect, an entrepreneur. This asks more of people, but it also means opportunity and challenge and an interesting life. No more serving time, half asleep, until you shuffle off into Social Security. I believe Americans can do this, but the fact is that they must. This is, of course, the opposite of life as imagined by Republocratic liberals, in which the whole country becomes a "company town" and the government is the company. That vision is hopelessly out of date. (Have Republocrats said anything new since the 1930s?) But worse, it doesn't work. It can't work because all wealth begins with people, and no system which does not invest its "human capital" can produce wealth. That's what's wrong with Republocrats' dream of living well at other people's expense: wealth must be created before Republocrats can redistribute it. Today, this dream of predatory self-righteousness serves mainly as bait-and-switch for gullible voters. To see what the tax system really looks like see this. Here's a quote - "Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all."
course some pro-lifers have no problem killing people in a church... and some pro-lifers have no issue forcing a rape victim to have their rapists baby .
Nope. The forcible removal of people's liberty by private landowning without just (or any) compensation is not a voluntary transaction. You cannot refute anything I have said, so you resort to name-calling. Simple.
The slim minority. Not the party platform. There are some democrats that believe in infanticide laws that would allow mothers to kill children under 5 and only face probation. Google "Houston infanticide courageous" if you don't believe me.
I know that land has been made into private property by law, just as slaves were, and just as invalidly. You are trying to substitute an accounting definition of capital for the economic definition. They are entirely different. You know that is false. It's not the premise in question. Learn some logic. Laughable. You know no logic. Just compensation to those whom you thereby deprive of those resources. Land in the sense of a location cannot be removed from nature, so it can't be made into a product of labor or rightful private property. ROTFL!! You could with equal "logic" claim that if you "freely acquire" a place in front of my house from a greedy, parasitic thug who has been charging me for using the sidewalk, it is not stealing when you start charging me for it, too. Wrong. Atmospheric air is not scarce, so no compensation is due. Others are not suffering any deprivation as a result of my breathing. Others ARE suffering deprivation through land having been appropriated as private property. You know this. So are the landless, and their liberty has likewise been forcibly removed. You cannot evade the fact that landowning removes people's liberty by pointing out that the land did not lose its liberty. If the earth's atmosphere was made into private property by law, and its owner started charging everyone else rent for air to breathe, would that be OK with you because the atmosphere is not a sentient being with rights? No? Then why is it OK for landowners to charge others for the land nature put there, just because it has been made into private property by law? <yawn> That is self-evidently and indisputably -- and inevitably -- absurd. The removal of people's rights to liberty by landowning, by contrast, is a fact of objective physical reality proved by every homeless person. Apologists for the greed, privilege, injustice and evil that make up the atrocity of landowning must always resort to absurdities. “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” -- Voltaire
some conservatives have no issue killing the born against the mothers wishes if in their minds it will cost to many $$$ to keep them alive http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html
It's pathetic to equate land and slaves - particularly by someone who has expressed interest in being a landlord (again). It is a distinction without a difference. If I thought it was false, I wouldn't be representing it as my opinion, or a fact. You declared a 'land license' as a 'license to steal'. That IS the contention in question, and it is a premise with which I take issue. You cannot argue something as fact to make a point to support your argument that that same something is fact. The person who needs a lesson in logical fallacy is you. Define 'just' in this context. Name amounts, and defend them as something other than your concocted musings. Also then explain how our atmosphere is any less scarce than land, as they are both critical parts of our ecosystem. And then explain to us how you are not a raging hypocrite, by breathing the air without paying for it; while entertaining notions of 'again' being a landlord, and while whining about others who are able to buy land from a willing seller in an ecosystem of trade which not only allows it, but provides anyone with sufficient assets to take part. Or - better yet - skulk off to fantasylandwhackjobs.com. Sure it can. That's what a bulldozer is for - and it is an absolutely meaningless concoction of your imagination regardless. Just because you declare offense that something which 'cannot be moved' can be transacted does not make it so. It just makes it another part of your baseless rant. Um...wat? If you were squatting on land which did not belong to you, and I purchased the land from the rightful owner, I have EVERY right to boot your vagrant ass off the land. But now you're babbling about public domain, and conflating issues regardless. WTF? Atmospheric air is not scarce? By whose standard? I declare that LAND is not scarce, and do so with equal credibility. That's why you've lost this argument. You cannot establish this 'deprivation' any more than I can say that you should be charged for breathing - which is the point. If two people want to use land for some purpose, one of them will be deprived in our economic system. Your complaint, therefore, isn't valid. Deprivation is not the standard by which justice can be measured. That presumes a liberty which you have yet to establish as legitimate, or recognized. No one but you and your whacky geoist ilk think this. Wut? Liberty is a function of sentience. Land is not sentient. That already happens. I have no right to breathe air within the space of someone else's private property. I've already defeated your silly attempt at a point. People's 'liberties' are restricted by every law on the books. Private property rights are no exception, whether these rights include land, or not. I got news for you, bubba. The one making absurd arguments is you. Silly attempt at a defense of your position, considering that I can see you very easily being a member of ELF, and committing such atrocities. - - - Updated - - - Um...you're actually trying to claim such an act is the work of Conservatives? Whackjob alert.
Certainly - if a whole bunch of Big Government types weren't working at the hulls of said boats with augers.
And Subdermal liked this post Oh Subdermal how could you. Problem: Not that ultra wealthy exist - The problem is America only has 100% of its' wealth. Dollars. Not 150% or 200%. When too much of the total wealth is in the hands of too few, a deficiency of circulation smothers an economy. When too much of the total wealth is in the hands of too few, it creates a plutocracy just like America today and in the late 1800's. William Jennings Bryan knew it and so did Huey Long although they were nothing alike in charactar. Today, the Pauls, Buddy Roemer, Gary Anderson, Dennis Kucinich try get the word our and are made out as fools, heretics, fanatics by a plutocratically controlled media. Bobov believes that is a good thing. Moi the Populist does not. Tax laws and economic policy cannot be heavenly neutral. They will favor someone. And for the last many decades they have favored a flow of more and higher % of that 100% to the 1%. Yes that is socialism, Socialism of the Rich, rugged individualism for the rest of us. Enough of this farce. The Paul Revolution on war profiteers, bankers, etc. will set our economy right. Rich Democrats are not going to tax themselves or their friends. Their heartfelt programs for the poor have been funded by the middle middle until they no longer exist. And the Republican solution of let the schools, bridges, roads, everything but the military - rot ; is nor a good solution either. Enough Hypocrisy and lies. 2016 support the Third Party of your choice for real choice in 2020. There is no difference for "us" between Tax Breaks for the Rich and Bernanke Dollars for the Rich. They lie. Moi The message is the same http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k
Remember Willie Sutton? Celebrated bank robber of the 1940s? He said something that entered popular culture. A reporter asked him why he robbed banks. He said "because that's where the money is." What you wrote is the robber's philosophy. You should be ashamed. The wealthy already pay most of the government's revenue, as you know - NOT the middle class. Their marginal rate is already very high, as you know. Combine Federal, state, and local taxes, and the average rich person pays over 50% of his income in taxes. Let me reprint part of my last post you might have overlooked - To see what the tax system really looks like see this. Here's a quote - "Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all." Republocrats like to say the rich must pay their "fair share." Who decides the "fair share"? Them? What gives them the right? You invoke several politicians including Ron Paul. Paul talks about people's right to keep the fruit of their labors, free of government. Republocrats speak about government's right to keep the fruit of people's labors, free of the people. Moi, you're the enemy of several of the politicians you list. What you're pushing is classic tax-and-spend liberalism as per Pelosi and Reid. Libertarians would agree that it's your right to be silly, but at least be up front about what you're saying. Here's what's wrong with government calling the shots for the economy - 1. People get rewarded for POLITICAL reasons. But successful economies reward ECONOMIC behavior. So the wrong things get encouraged. 2. Washington lobbying becomes key to business success. In successful economies, businesses compete by making better products for less money, NOT by becoming intriguing courtiers whose lawyers and lobbyists run the company. 3. Since pols don't understand business or economics, they usually make the wrong decisions. People get what pols want or what they think will get votes, not what people need. 4. It severs the link between what people do and their results. It tells people that what they have is a gift, not what they've earned. That's morally corrosive and economically destructive to the whole society. You complain that government policies favor the rich. In saying this, you make the case against government control of the economy. See my second and third bullets above. What you describe is the direct result of an economy in which the government has too much power, so that people who can lobby - mainly the rich - can tilt things their way. The answer is NOT to try to move the government another way. That's trying to cure poisoning by taking more poison. The answer is to GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE ECONOMY, where it doesn't belong, and let the market - that means the people - reassert control. Then there would be no tilt. The cure for government putting its right thumb on the economy's scales is not to add the left thumb. We need the boldness to try economic life with less government interference of any kind.
I believe being a tax and spend liberal is more conservative than being a borrow and spend republican.
"William Jennings Bryan knew it and so did Huey Long..." Taxcutter says: A couple of history's losers.
Moi, "tax and spend" is defined this way by Wikipedia - "Tax and spend is a pejorative epithet applied to politicians or policies which increase the size of government." That's it. Tax and spend liberals want to expand government power to do good things. What they fail to understand is that government can not do what they want it to. Only the market - another name for the people - can do that. The result is that they pursue more and more power as their ends recede beyond their reach. Ultimately, they become tyrants of a ruined society. This has been the story of liberalism since the 19th century. Moi, you want economic equality - a popular liberal goal. You think the way to get there is by government action - revising taxes and government spending in ways you think will advance social justice. That's "tax and spend." It can't work. The attempt will cause vast economic dislocation that will hurt millions of people. Most of the politicians you say you admire agree with me.
I do not believe in Corporate Welfare, but I also simultaneously understand that the many superficially imposed regulations foisted upon us by Government creates the conditions under which these 'corporate handouts' are then justified. Shrink Government; remove many of its regulatory powers, and the justification for Corporate welfare disappears.
Okay Subdermal and bobov too End the corporate tax code. One tax code for all ! Corporations are people after all. Moi
Corporations should not be taxed at all. Only imbeciles do not realize that taxes on Corporations are additional taxes on their customers, as they pay more for products and services.
