Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Pacifist or not, Einstein was very influential, that is why bringiton used an ALBERT FREAKIN EINSTEIN quote as a reference for Henry George.

Honestly, I think using quotes from random folks is a losing tactic in a discussion, one can always find others of equal stature to have a contradictory opinion.

 

You think someone who states "Einstein also built weapons of mass destruction" has a credible opinion on him? That's an interesting viewpoint!

 

Bottom line; Einstein was brilliant in physics, mathematics, and similar science stuff, but that doesn't mean he knew Jack about economics, politics, and the social sciences.

 

So you've gone from the lie "Einstein also built weapons of mass destruction" to Einstein was brilliant but also an idiot? Impressive!

If you were to be insightful, you'd refer to his writings on socialism and critique then. Why didn't you do that? Why did you instead first provide misinformation over his nature and then try to besmirk his understanding?

 

No, I used him because he was indisputably very INTELLIGENT, thus disproving rahl's absurd and despicable filth.

They weren't random and you know it. They were all indisputably brilliant.

Stature? Maybe. Not integrity.

 

Socialists typically are!

 

No such thing has been demonstrated, nor will it ever be. Denying is not disputing, sorry.

No, that is just a repetition of the same bald falsehood you have been peddling all along. It is funded by many taxes, the mix depending on jurisdiction. Often sales taxes are used, but many locales use income tax, too. Your claim is just objectively false.

However, the more interesting point here is how you have surreptitiously and disingenuously moved the goalposts to deceive readers. I initially identified the fact that the full market value of all government spending on desirable services and infrastructure is taken by landowners as a subsidy. You then disingenuously tried to change the subject by dropping the word, "services" (which account for the great bulk of government spending and thus the subsidy to landowners) and claiming, falsely, that "infrastructure" is paid for by property taxes. However, we know that most infrastructure spending -- the interstate highway system, seaports and airports, dams and water diversion projects, etc. -- is not funded by property taxes at all, because it is mostly federal, and the federal government does not levy any property taxes. So we have already established for certain that your claim is objectively a bald falsehood.

But that was not enough for you. You had to try to deceive your readers even further by moving the goalposts again. Now it isn't "all desirable public services and infrastructure" as I originally pointed out, or even "infrastructure." You have had to narrow the subject to "local" infrastructure in order to deceitfully divert your readers' attention from all the non-local infrastructure spending and spending on services -- the great majority of all government spending -- that function as subsidies to landowners. No doubt you thought you were being subtle and sneaky enough to get away with this deceit, but I have caught you red-handed and exposed you for what you are.

I already proved to you that the landowner steals from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. This is easy to prove by a simple example:

THE BANDIT
Suppose there is a bandit who frequents the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return (the pass was already there with no help from him), just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

And come to that, how is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

The landowner is simply a protection racketeer.

<yawn> Denial without evidence is not an argument. I have provided indisputable facts and irrefutable logic that prove I am correct. You have provided nothing but your bald denials of self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

No, I have proved it is true. By contrast, you have never provided a single shred of factual or logical support for your pointless and baseless denials.

No you don't. You have not provided any facts or logic that support your claims, nor will you ever be doing so.

No, we have the mathematical proof that they do. Your stubborn refusals to know the relevant facts do not alter them, sorry. Denial is not an argument.

No, that is another bald falsehood from you, as I proved above. Landowners get a subsidy equal to ALL government spending -- local, state and national -- on desirable services and infrastructure that is not stolen by corruption or wasted through incompetence: i.e., the value of the services and infrastructure landowners are privileged to charge everyone else for. YOU are trying to restrict the discussion to local government because you know you are objectively wrong.

No, local infrastructure is also paid for with other taxes, which therefore constitute subsidies to landowners, as landowners take the full value of such infrastructure. We know this has been proved logically, because if there were no subsidy to landowners and they were paying full value for what they take from the community, the land would not be worth anything.

I'm not a Georgist, but enemies of liberty, justice, prosperity and truth are not funny. They are despicable, sickening, and evil.

No, I have identified the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove I am correct and you are wrong, and you have not been able to offer a single fact or argument of any kind to the contrary. Nor will you ever be doing so.

No, we have established that they are continuously stealing from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land, as proved above.

Denial of facts is not an argument, sorry.

No, we have established absolute and indisputable proof that they are constantly stealing from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.

<yawn> We both know that's not the case.

Blank refusal to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality is not an argument, sorry.

 

Because Einstein supported the creation of the atomic bomb and apparently also supported socialism. Feel free to justify those two supposedly opposing positions.

 

Not in my experience. Only the few glib rabble rousers who run socialist organizations have any brains. The rank and file are frequently poor, marginalized, and dumb as posts.

 

How are they opposing? He was afraid, with reason, that fascist Germany was pursuing the bomb.

 

But you're a Georgist and that tends to limit.

 

That you don't apologise for telling porkies is a shame. Get back to me when you focus on honest comment.

 

You know this is a lie. All of your georgist rants have been addressed and refuted.

 

whats wrong with defending socialism with weapons including nuclear weapons??
does socialism mean : opposed to self defense??

 

You're not making any sense here. Why do you think Einstein was a socialist?

 

if so why so afraid to tell us why. What do you learn from your fear?

 

obviously because he was stupid politically. Can't you predict the answers that you get over and over again to essentially the same question?

 

Given the 'quality of your posts, there's an amusement in you calling Einstein stupid. Well done!

 

I said he was stupid politically as were the Nazis genius scientists working on nuclear weapons. Feel embarrassed now?

 

That you didn't try and critique his political writings and just went for a "that genius is stooopid" still makes me smile.

 

a million people have critiqued socialism and 120 million human souls have slowly starved to death under socialism. Do you think Nazi scientists should be studied for their defense on National Socialism? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

Einstein wouldnt confuse socialism, fascism and liberalism. You do. Hmmm, whose the one with knowledge?

 

our Founders did and confused them with 100 other liberal ideologies, made them all illegal, and thus created the greatest country in human history by far!!

 

Do you ever think 'I shouldn't type that, it won't make any sense'? If not, perhaps you should think about it?

 

of course if it doesn't make sense you would not be so afraid to say why. What did you learn from your fear?