Are they willing to let the world burn?

So you admit that no rich person has ever got that way by commensurate contributions to production. Good.

 

SPV Mantra (Self Proclaimed Victory).
RQAA.

 

Thank you for again agreeing that you have not been able to name a single rich person who got that way purely by commensurate contributions to production, and never will.

 

Good try -- you have more patience than I do -- but I could have told you he would offer nothing.

 

not only silly, but unintelligent.

 

SPV Mantra.
RQAA.

 

Short, repetitive, content free responses. Maybe I'm seeing double, but it seems we have two rahls now.

 

LOL! Based on your lack of ability to make an argument of any sort, I've probably got about 50 IQ points on you.

 

Thank you for again agreeing that you have not been able to name a single rich person who got that way purely by commensurate contributions to production, and never will.

 

I've made my argument. I pointed out how moronic and silly it is to compare owning land to owning a human being.

 

So you don't understand the difference between making a claim and making an argument to support that claim.

 

nvm

 

You offered no factual or logical argument to support that claim, and I proved to you in at least five different ways that owning land was not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent to owning human beings. The only difference is that when you own a human being, you own all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you own one of all people's rights. If that is too hard for you to understand, maybe you can understand it stated slightly differently: slavery removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time.

 

SPV Mantra.
RQAA.

 

Thank you for again agreeing that you have not been able to name a single rich person who got that way purely by commensurate contributions to production, and never will.

 

So you don't understand the difference between a human being and a land parcel?

 

you are fully aware that is not true. We've been over this in the other thread in the economics forum. Comparing owning a human to owning land is retarded.

 

1. Ignoratio elenchi fallacy: That land is not a human being and that there are differences is in an of itself true (thanks, Sherlock) but fails to address the relevant point in question.
2. We're not pointing out similarities between human beings and land, we're pointing out similarities between owning land and owning a human being with regards to the effect both types of property can have on humans. Not land. HUMANS. If somebody blocked out the sun, it wouldn't be the sun's rights that are being violated. It would be humans who are thus deprived of sunlight whose rights are being violated.
3. The assumption that only what is exactly alike can be compared is stupid low IQ nonsense. Get yourself a good dictionary and look up the definition of "compare". There is no sense of the word that would support that such stupid low IQ nonsense. Your often repeated claim that "comparing owning a human to owning land is retarded" is nothing but stupid low IQ nonsense.

Short, repetitive, content free reply with an undeservedly high level of confidence coming in 3...2...1...

 

I wish I could expect more content from you.

Short, repetitive, content free reply with an undeservedly high level of confidence coming in 3..2..1..

 

I have proved it is true.

Yes, and I proved you wrong multiple different ways.

No; you are aware that I have proved in several different ways that owning other people's rights to liberty is owning other people's rights to liberty, whether that is done through a slave deed, a land deed, a title deed to the earth's atmosphere, or any other equivalent form of property deed in others' rights to liberty. Owning human beings and owning land are therefore not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent.

 

<yawn> Why can't you ever remember that I have already proved many times that your evil, fallacious, and disingenuous garbage is evil, fallacious, and disingenuous garbage?

You know I have already proved to you many times that even though a human being is very different from the earth's atmosphere, owning the earth's atmosphere would be equivalent to owning all the human beings who need to breathe the atmosphere to live.

You know I have already proved to you many times that even though a human being is very different from a spring in the desert, owning the spring would be equivalent to owning a human being who needs to drink from the spring to survive.

You know I have already proved to you many times that even though a human being is very different from an island in the ocean, Crusoe owning the island, and giving Friday the option of either working as his slave or getting back in the water, would be equivalent to Crusoe owning Friday.

You know I have already proved to you many times that even though food is very different from a human being, owning someone's right to eat food would be not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent to owning that person.

And you know that I have already proved to you many times that dividing up a person's rights among many owners does not alter the fact that their rights are owned by others, just as a slave's rights are. If one person owns my right to eat potatoes, and another owns my right to eat wheat, and another owns my right to eat apples, and another owns my right to drink milk, and so on, so that there is no life-sustaining type of food I have a right to consume, then I must offer myself as a slave to one or more of the owners of my rights to sustain myself, or starve to death.

As everyone must use land to exist just as they must eat to exist, you know this proves that even though a land parcel is very different from a human being, owning a land parcel is not only comparable to, not only similar to, but equivalent to owning human beings, as I have already proved to you by indisputable historical fact:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war
broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky
home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old
negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God,
I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented
with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper
now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents
they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were
compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were
compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he
could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have
got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND, RAHL??? A man who ACTUALLY WAS A SLAVE JUST TOLD YOU THAT OWNING LAND IS THE SAME AS OR EVEN WORSE THAN OWNING SLAVES.

GET IT???

 

Pretending to be retarded as an excuse for refusing to know the fact that owning other people's rights is the same as owning other people's rights is evil.

 

<yawn> Is air comparable to a human being?

Now is owning someone's right to breathe air comparable to owning that human being?

See how easily I always prove your obtuse, fallacious and disingenuous garbage is obtuse, fallacious and disingenuous garbage?

But as you know I have proved to you many times, and in many different, independently conclusive ways, OWNING land is not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent to owning human beings, just as owning someone's right to breathe air is equivalent to owning that person.

 

we can't get to more substantive content until you can grasp the basic concept that land and a human being are in no way comparable.

moronic, repetitive georgist nonsense coming in 3....2.......1.............