True. When a man is enslaved, there is only one victim of the crime. When a plot of land is owned, everyone who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land is a victim of the crime. A man enslaved loses all his rights, like a man swallowed whole by a snake, but no one else is harmed. Feeding a man to your pet snake is obviously murder. But owning one plot of land is more like giving everybody else one tiny, parasitic worm: you prosper from all the nutrients the millions of parasites provide you, but the other people don't even notice they are being harmed. However, if others own a few million more plots, that's a few million more parasites for each person, and the ones who aren't getting any nutrients from their own armies of parasites -- who don't own any plot of land -- are weakened and sick. At some point, the load of parasites is fatal to millions of landless people. But because we can't point to YOUR parasite as the fatal one in any of those millions of deaths, you think you can sanctimoniously profess your innocence of any crime, and no one will discern the truth: that you are a parasite and a murderer.
It is not his intention to contribute to the debate, but only to prevent others from understanding the facts that prove his beliefs are false and evil.
Baldly false. No, indisputability. There's a difference. The efficiency of taxing land rent is so far from obvious that most people can't even understand it, and some purported "economists" have even claimed, falsely and absurdly, to disprove it. <yawn> Despicable filth without support or content. No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. They say, "See? Known fact of economics." No, it's just a measure of frustration with the ineducability of apologists for landowner privilege. I've certainly had the experience, many times, with people like you, of stating a fact of economics and getting no reply but, "No economist agrees with you." Quoting Nobel laureates just becomes irresistible. No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. Most are openly proud of it. I just don't consider it honest to call myself a Georgist when I part ways so markedly with Henry George on a number of important issues. I'm not sure why you consider it honest to call me a Georgist under such circumstances (if you even do, and aren't just deliberately lying about it).
In the antebellum South, pointing out that slaves were available for sale and people could buy them did not constitute a justification for slavery, sorry.
Again, no I'm not, as I already proved to you. <yawn> If someone owned the earth's atmosphere and charged everyone rent for air to breathe, it would be disingenuous to claim that those who opposed this atrocity by comparing it to slavery were "confusing humans with air." Wait, did I say, "disingenuous"?? Naaahhh. More accurately, it would be grotesquely evil, despicable filth.
"You can implant parasite worms in everyone else's blood and feed off their nutrients instead of earning a living, if you want to." I guess that sort of opportunity appeals to some people. Some might even claim that the fact the opportunity is available proves there can't be anything wrong with taking advantage of it.
I once read a paper where researchers restrained a female chimp so she could be raped, then put her in a cage with male chimps and observed their behavior. Some of the males took advantage of the opportunity, others did not. Some apes apparently believe that if an opportunity to violate others' rights is presented, one might as well take advantage of it.
Yep. And just like any other natural resource once you mix your labor with it or purchase it with the fruits of your labor that land is your own property.
It is physically impossible to mix labor with land, that's just a misleading metaphor. So land can never rightly have become property in the first place. Not surprisingly, as no private land title in history has ever been based on anything but forcible appropriation.
Neither did I. People work the land. They build on it, plant food and various Flora. This is literally mixing labor with the land. Not too hard a concept.
Another deliberate misrepresentation. There has simply been recognition, across the board, that George's Single Tax quickly became irrelevant. Round and round you go! Step 1: provide overemotional Georgism; step 2: when asked for economic detail, provide neoclassical guff; step 3: when informed of neoclassical guff, go into bile mode; step 4: repeat. I've encountered a lot of Georgists on here. Indeed, they're overrepresented as they inflate perceived value of their 'insights'. Not one calls themselves Georgist. All have uses quotes referring positively to George. All have pretended Geoism is the only truth. You're the first mind you that has pretended China is a great Geoist success story
No, rights, and the difference between the evil and the rest of us in how we regard them. The evil don't think others have rights, so they see nothing wrong with violating them if they can get away with it.
Its first owner did. The title you bought originated in forcible appropriation. It doesn't matter how many times a slave is bought and sold, nothing can alter the fact that you can't rightly buy something that can't rightly be owned.
