I'm curious to hear how he intends to keep a wandering shepherd from running his goats thru your garden. This should be sweet.
Oh, with "trustees", which like with all statists simply means the monopoly of power that is commonly referred to as "the state". Every wannabe tyrant can be boiled to this.
But these people will stop the wandering shepherd from running his goats thru my garden? Isn't that a violation of his right to liberty?
Yes, with guns and truncheons. But as you know, you don't have to worry about the shepphard you must worry about the state.
I'm fascinated to find out how the shepherd will have his right to liberty violated. It's evil. Evil, I tell you...
That's a long list. Tax cuts, for one thing. In the 80s, Republicans greatly increased cheating on taxes, and cut back on enforcement. I've got a book in the library that goes over that. If I can ever get it out of the library.
And to simplify your blather, you haven't proven a blessed thing, you've put forth your opinion, which is un supported by facts. Land does have an intrinsic value. You can't grow crops on bare rock. You can't grow high pH crops on alkaline soil. You can grow high alkaline crops on alkaline soil. You can graze sheep on rocky soil, but you can't grow deep rooted crops on rocky soil. Land does have intrinsic value, based on what you intend to do with it. Cavemen protected the cave of their family, and didn't necessarily worry about Joe down the street's cave. While they involved themselves in community when it benefitted them, and as they learned the ability to 'team' on various activities, then communities formed. Do a bit of reading. Those ^^^^ are facts. When you learn what facts are, get back with me. Other than that, have a great day!
The book is The Triumph of Injustice. I've had it before, but only read part of it. It is quite good. It taught me a few things, which I didn't expect. https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Inju...he+triumph+of+injustice&qid=1592935373&sr=8-1
A Supreme Court justice used to be happy on tax day. Coming back from posting his form, while whistling, one of the clerks asked him why he was so happy. "Today is the day I buy civilisation."
If force is involved, you are doing it wrong. You know, you should leave this horror immediately. Move to a country that meets your standards, like Somalia.
Right. As you know, but are for the umpteenth time disingenuously pretending not to, an economy above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding stages requires secure, exclusive tenure. As we have already established, in a society characterized by liberty, justice, and respect for the equal individual rights of all such as I advocate, people are justly compensated for the loss of their natural liberty to use all land non-exclusively with free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity (which is actually much more valuable than liberty to use all land non-exclusively). By contrast, in a society characterized by feudalism, slavery, or private landowning such as you advocate, people's rights to liberty are just forcibly stripped from them without just compensation and given to the privileged as their private property, so that they can legally be robbed and enslaved by the greedy, privileged, parasitic right-owning class. Only if the land is given over to private owners with no just compensation made to those whose rights to liberty are thus removed. Stealing is taking from others without making just compensation, as private landowners do to everyone who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. Just compensation is the only just way to reconcile the natural liberty rights of all to non-exclusive use of land with security of property rights for those who produce fixed improvements. You merely hate proposals for such compensation because you hate liberty, justice and truth.
Hallelujah!! I am overjoyed to see you have finally seen the light, and will now join me in advocating a combined system of public revenue and secure, exclusive land tenure that is based entirely on voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transactions.
Nah. I think I'll try to influence policy here in my home country. Try to nudge us out of the bronze age.
You cannot refute a single sentence I have written. No, THAT is absurd and irrational propertarian garbage. Ownership by definition includes the right of disposition, which is physically impossible in the case of the self as every person's self is inherently always under their own immediate control. The concept of self-ownership is nothing but incoherent propertarian tripe designed to recast the equal individual human rights to life and liberty as property rights, and thus something that can be bought and sold. It is fallacious, disingenuous and despicable. No. It is his right to LIBERTY that is infringed upon, the exact same right that landowners infringe upon. Remember, slavery -- labor compelled by force -- is not just chattel slavery where property relations are involved. There is also penal slavery, debt slavery, corvee slavery, etc. in which the slave is never considered property, but simply has their liberty rights removed, as they are by landowning. Because there is no such thing as a right to self-ownership, for land or people, as proved above. What you are fallaciously, absurdly, and disingenuously doing here is pretending that the only rights that could be involved in private ownership of land are the land's (self-evidently non-existent) rights. You thus seek to divert readers' attention from the fact -- even the concept -- that people have liberty rights that landowning abrogates. But you should know better by now: I am not going to let you get away with that. You are also fallaciously, absurdly and disingenuously pretending that slavery does not remove the slave's right to liberty, but only violates some absurd and incoherent "right of self-ownership," which every slave and slave owner in history has known was bollocks. No, that is an indisputable fact, as I have proved many times. What is really evil and disingenuous -- not to mention self-evidently false and absurd -- is to say that forcibly removing people's rights to liberty and making them into others' private property without making just compensation is not akin to forcibly removing people's rights to liberty and making them into others' private property without making just compensation.