That's right. It issued and secures the title for you. A previous parasite who charged you full market value for permission to exercise your right to liberty, just as you now wish to charge others for permission to exercise theirs. Too late!
You claim imperialism, which ended the practice of widow burning, is always evil. So you support widow burning. Thanks for clarifying your position for us.
The fact that you claim I pretend to be a Georgist when I have told you many times I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist is at least conclusive proof of what YOU are. As opposed to someone who says, "Imperialism is always bad, even when it ends the practice of burning widows alive on their husbands' funeral pyres." Good to see you reiterate your support for burning widows alive.
I appreciate why you don't like the Georgist tag! Its terribly old hatted after all. No bother. It still amuses how you've dug yourself so deep. I appreciate the process mind you, so do feel some sympathy for you. You've probably watched a film about Churchill and thought 'golly, if I mention him perhaps those that respect him will also respect me'. You just didn't realise that his views on land were completely incompatible and that his human rights abuses make a mockery of your morality-based bluster.
So without Mother England, society wouldn't have progressed? Your support for imperialism is properly weird. Perhaps you religiously watch Zulu every day, thus believing the Battle of Rorke's Drift is a perfect depiction of British empire?
Yes, it has become a term of abuse that is used by apologists for landowner privilege, like you, to dismiss advocates of justice in land tenure as personality cultists, without having to address any actual facts or logic. You should: you've now dug yourself into a hole where you support widow burning. Tsk, tsk. <yawn> Take it up with the Nobel committee, which awarded him the prize for literature. While you are at it, review the prize criteria. You can't refute what I quoted from Churchill, so you have to pretend I quoted something else. Simple. You continue to heap disgrace upon yourself. I wonder you can even still breathe under such a weight.
No, its a term that is correctly used for specific political economy. Technically you haven't mastered that political economy, as illustrated by your support of imperialism (the ultimate land grab) An imperialist apologist pretending to be a Georgist! How exotic. Did they take into account his support of concentration camps? Be serious! You morality rant over the importance of land. That you then hero-worship an imperalistmerely advertises just how vacuous, and economics free, your stance really is. More nothing comment! Do you think Churchill's imperialism is consistent with a moral stance on land? Be honest for a change
So you support widow burning until such time as society might "progress"? Good to know where you stand. It's something you made up. So it's routine, not weird. More empty blather.
So you just choose to use it incorrectly to describe my political economy....? How, exactly, is that different from lying about what I have plainly written? No, you made that up. And enlightened imperialism such as Germany exercised in Kiaochow before WW I is certainly far preferable to the native despotism that ruled there before, and continued to rule in the rest of China, as proved by the actual prevailing conditions there. Imperialism per se is just a red herring. Human rights, justice, competence and honesty in government matter far more than who is in charge of the government. That's why I think the British Empire did well to abolish widow burning in India, while you think the widows should have continued to be burned alive until such time as Indian society progressed enough on its own to end the practice. Given the difficulty India STILL has suppressing caste, that would have been a lot of burnt widows. So it's good to know that you support widow burning as long as the local despots support it, which might be as long as they can hold onto power. Another disingenuous claim that I am "pretending to be a Georgist" when I have stated many times, explicitly, that I am not a Georgist. As for being an imperialist apologist, I will simply observe that empire has often been the instrument of good, e.g., as the British Empire did more to suppress slavery in the world than any other institution before or since. You say imperialism is always wrong, so you support slavery. I get it. Speaking of being serious, why would they? You are obviously trying to deceive your readers by conflating the kind of camps Churchill advocated with the slave labor and extermination camps associated with Soviet socialism and German National Socialism. I speak the truth that you seek to suppress. You made that up. I'm not the one who proposed "market compensation" for seized capital based not on market value, but the phantasm of "value" in a market from which labor has been removed. You are. So you are the VERY LAST PERSON IN THE WORLD who can describe anyone else's views as being "economics free." As hey say in Japan, "It's mirror time!" Of course not, that's too high a bar. Even Henry George would not have cleared it. This, from YOU??!?!?!
You're not difficult to understand. Georgism 101 is three fold. First, rant about land. Second, call people evil if they don't rant about land. Third, pretend that you're not a Georgist as it makes you look rather ridiculous. You do love to keep digging your own hole. The landowner, in your words is 'pure evil'. But when we refer to imperialism (and enslaving whole countries), we shift to 'enlightened'. Chortle, chortle, you couldn't be more ludicrous in your effort. You continue to show nothing but naivety. The Empire killed millions. Its estimated to have killed 'up to 29 million Indians in the late 19th century alone'. Here's a jolly video to try and get through to you Concentration camps killed 28,000 Boers and 14,000 Blacks in the Boer War. And what did he say about those black Africans?: "irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men". So a racist and a supporter of mass murder. I've referred to the protection of property rights, with complete consistency with the Austrian school of economics. To compare that with your support for imperialism is of course quite silly. The Georgist can't help himself methinks!
TOP TO BOTTOM First of all, it isn't "socialism". I keep harping on this fact because Americans use it willy-nilly and wrongly. Socialism is a country where the government OWNS ALL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Now, go find me where on earth that country exists? (North Korea!) Moreover, I (for one) am not suggesting worker self-directed enterprises. In fact, I know the system well because it existed in a country that was once called Yugoslavia - and no longer exists. What I am suggesting however is that (by law) the sharing of the fruits-of-labor within the company should be implemented. Which simply means that all the perquisites that TopManagment enjoys are replicated (not equally but fairly) down the corporate ladder top-to-bottom. Management is not the only attribute of a company necessary for success. It is perhaps the most important - but it is far from being "uniquely important" - and there is no bonafide reason why management alone should be gifted the benefits of a company's commercial success ... PS: The measures suggested above will be insufficient to really diminish America's rampant Income Disparity. That will require near confiscatory taxation of exorbitant upper-incomes. The US never ever should have reduced taxation in the 1960s from 90 to 70% (and then under Reckless Ronnie from there to 30%)
Just too difficult for you, apparently, unless you are just lying: First, claim falsely that telling the truth about land is "ranting." Second, make more false claims about what I have plainly written. Those who DELIBERATELY and ACTIVELY rationalize privilege and justify injustice, as you do, are evil. Third, falsely claim that I am "pretending" to be a Georgist when I have stated explicitly that I am not, then when that false claim is exposed, falsely claim that I am "pretending" not to be a Georgist. Of course European imperialist rule was at times more enlightened than the previous rulers, who were often pure evil: not only land monopolists but slave traders and tyrants. That's why the British Empire did more to end slavery than any other institution, abolished widow burning, etc. At least I'm not dishonest. But saved many more millions. Of course, your video does not even attempt to consider how many Indians would have been killed if the British had NOT been ruling India at that time. By how much more did the population of India increase during the Raj than in the pre-British era, hmmmmmm? How many more blacks and Boers would have died without them? Blank out. Soldiers are not saints, and at that time were virtually obliged to demonize the enemy. So? As something you would abolish without just compensation. False. No Austrian economist has ever proposed to compensate confiscation by reference to "value" in an absurd and non-existent market. Of course that is again something you made up. It's equivalent to the stupid lie that acknowledging that Mussolini made the trains run on time means one supports fascism. But not dishonest. So now pointing out that Henry George did not manage to formulate a moral stance on land somehow makes me a Georgist?? You are an utter disgrace.
Calling landowners 'pure evil' is telling the truth about land? Sorry chum, that is 'pure rant'. Here's an example of the rant: "The landowner qua landowner is always a pure parasite, a pure thief, pure evil". You seem to think you can type rant and then pretend it doesn't exist. Strange notion! As I said, its Georgism 101: pretend not to be Georgist at all costs. The land obsession, ignoring all other aspects of economics, is straight out of Georgism 101. So the individual landowner is 'pure evil', but imperialism (and the enslavement of whole countries) is part of a path to enlightenment? That continues to be one of the most ridiculous arguments on here. And I've heard some spectacular competition! Let's see your honesty. Please refer me to a history piece which refers to empire saving 'many more millions'. I'm going to be amused either way, given my diddy prediction: you'll either pretend a source or you'll dodge. Neither of course would be related to honest comment. Refer me to one history piece that makes the claim that the British reduced democide. Refer me to one history piece that makes the claim that more people would have died without concentration camps? Your open support for the use of concentration camps, however, is acknowledged! Love this! Lansdowners are evil, but soldiers just aren't saints! Your morality ranting in full swing. Tut, tut, you're fibbing again! I stated that a firm could have negative value without labour, given the nature of sunk costs. However, compensation according to entrepreneurial value is a standard proposition (we see that, for example, as large companies takeover SMEs) I appreciate that you're poorly read on economics. Try https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11138-008-0059-z for an introduction. Let's not forget your argument: You think the landowner is 'pure evil', but you refer to 'enlightened' and 'saving millions' when referring to imperialism. Your hole is getting deeper! Georgism 101 doesn't involve much understanding of George. There's no appreciation, for example, of the 'single tax'. It does refer to blinkered ranting about the importance of land, ignoring all other issues. However, it is true that a Georgist would typically avoid celebrating imperialism and a racist supporter of concentration camps.
Who decides what is fair? Answer: No one who can be trusted to do so. The further away from the workers, customers and investors you devolve this decision the more open to corruption it becomes. And that is why socialism consistently fails. Sorry if the reality of socialism doesn't match your idealistic vision of it. Perhaps it's time you grew up. .
The folk who grunt 'the reality' can't actually refer to any political economy of socialism. That's the reality: ignorance of basic economics.
While I agree with the video mostly, I would go back to the 1890's and the 'progressive' movement as being the origin of decline, exacerbated by Wilson in 1913 with the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution, and the Federal Reserve Act, followed by Roosevelt with Social Security and the minimum wage, LBJ's 'Great Society' and massive Federal welfare program creation, and most recently Obamacare. It used to be said that we study history so we will not be doomed to repeat it, while in fact it would appear that what it proves is that history of human kind is repetitious differing only by the technology used to bring about the demise and a new beginning.
PS: The measures suggested above will be insufficient to really diminish America's rampant Income Disparity. That will require near confiscatory taxation of exorbitant upper-incomes. The US never ever should have reduced taxation in the 1960s from 90 to 70% (and then under Reckless Ronnie from there to 30%) Should read: PS: The measures suggested above will NOT be insufficient to really diminish America's rampant Income Disparity. That will require near confiscatory taxation of exorbitant upper-incomes. The US never ever should have reduced taxation in the 1960s from 90 to 70% (and then under Reckless Ronnie from there to 30%)
Why did our liberals spy for Stalin if they were not socialists?Why was Castro the darling of avant-garde American liberals. Why did FDR’s cabinet say I have seen the future and it works after they saw Stalins Russia. There is a great book called useful idiots which details all the genius liberals who have great sympathy for Stahelin. Do you mind read it to see if you can understand that.
You continue to make no sense. Liberals are not socialists, by definition. Fascists are not socialists, by definition. State capitalists are not socialists, by definition. Your binary world, where you have bogusly created a sense of righteousness based on non-socialism, has no resemblance to rational comment.
Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate) "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
actually it's not my world. Plato and Aristotle first defined the central issue of human history. Our Founders sided with Aristotle and thus made liberal statism illegal. Do you understand now??
