Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

12 million dead Where exactly????
is there even one economist who agrees with you or are you a proud minority of one insane liberal person?

 

it's no more publicly owned that land in America. in fact less in China since they don't have a yearly property tax which we do as a reminder of our vestigial liberal Feudal history.

 

No. It's the atom owners. Everyone who owns gold atoms is denying all of us access to something that nature created, which is a violation of our rights.

 

No, that's just false. They did not take possession of it, they just used it. Some animals are territorial, and try to prevent others from using resources they use, but that is not ownership. It is brute, forcible, violent, animal aggression.

No, you're objectively wrong. Only a few animal species are territorial; and it's not common among primates, which, like human beings, are almost all social.

You are also wrong to claim that the violence was or is only in response to "encroachment" on an established territory needed for survival. Territorial animals typically attack each other whenever they encounter each other, whether in their own territories, a rival's territory, or unclaimed territory. They will drive others away even to prevent access to resources far in excess of what they need to survive. A hummingbird can't use all the syrup in the feeder, but if you hang ten more feeders full of syrup, it will still try to drive off other hummingbirds rather than let them access the plentiful resource. In this sense, hummingbirds are like human landowners.

No, private landowning was unknown until a few thousand years ago, following the advent of settled agriculture, and the modern concept of private landowning originated with the Romans.

No. It is indisputably an institution concocted as a quick and dirty solution to the problem of property in fixed improvements, just as slavery was a quick and dirty solution to the problem of labor shortages and captives resulting from warfare. Today we have better solutions.

It is certainly the primary source of unearned wealth.

But in China, which has shown the most spectacular economic growth in history, there is no private landowning.

So you are again proved objectively wrong.

 

No, nature did not create the atoms where they are now, nor did it create WHAT they are now. Unlike land.

YOU KNOW THIS. You are just trying to pretend that "product of labor" means "matter produced ex nihilo," when you know perfectly well that it does not. To make a product by one's labor just MEANS that a person takes atoms nature created from their natural places and makes something nature did not make.

 

As I said Land in China is probably more private than land in America because we have yearly property tax iand they don't on land in China

 

That's just baldly false.

Ah, yes, they most certainly do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_China#Urban_and_Township_Land_Use_Tax

So now feudalism is liberal?? You are so far down the rabbit hole, you are almost IN China.

 

I already told you: in capitalist countries. That is the number of people who die of poverty in capitalist countries each year. Almost all are landless, and almost all would have lived if they had their rights to liberty to sustain themselves, which have been removed under capitalism and made into landowners' private property.

Economists don't think in those terms. They aren't allowed to.

 

Wherever you try to move them to, they were created by nature. You have no right to deprive me my right to them because you didn't create them; nature did.

Atoms are not a product of labor. They are a gift of nature and belong equally to us all.

Just because someone takes the atoms that nature created simply makes him a thief. He has no more right to own them than anyone else.

 

Wrong. I have a right to deprive you of them when I have removed them from nature, because they are no longer what nature provided, they are a product of my labor, BY DEFINITION. You are just refusing to use the correct definitions of ordinary English words, and pretending they have some other definitions you made up.

Irrelevant. Products of labor BY DEFINITION consist of atoms that are not themselves products of labor.

No, they only belong equally to all where nature put them, where all would otherwise be at liberty to use them.

No, that's just more disingenuous absurdity on your part. A thief deprives someone of what they would otherwise have. Atoms removed from where nature put them are no longer something others would otherwise have.

Wrong. He has made them into a product of labor, so to deprive him of them would deprive him of something he would otherwise have. But for him to deprive others of them does NOT deprive them of anything they would otherwise have, because the atoms are not where they otherwise were.

 

No, case not closed. Who makes the profit in your nice neat little story? The BUSINESS OWNER. You don't know squat about worker co-ops. And your story falls flat on its face.

 

1 million kinds of stock ownership programs have been tried to engage workers. None worked case closed.

 

So atoms are a product of your labor? Seriously? You created them?

What definition?

Says who? And why?

Why can't I otherwise have the gold atoms in my neighbor's wedding band? They were created by nature, and if he weren't preventing me access to them, I could otherwise have them.

Made them into? Has he changed the gold atoms in some way? How are they different from when he found them and stole them from the rest of us?

So if I steal your car, I'm not depriving you of it because it's not where it was when I stole it from you?

 

Who said? Seriously. Who said that? Whose definition is it?

 

so 12 million die a year because of capitalism but you cant tell us where exactly other than in capitalist countries??? Insane?

 

got it, so not one economist agrees with your insanity about land. Is there anybody on earth with a college degree who agrees with you?

 

In stock ownership programs the real owners (the founding elite) own 51% of more of the stock and it's "one vote per share", so the elite run it. In WSDEs the rule is "one vote per person", so it's democratic.

So who makes the profit in your nice neat little story? The BUSINESS OWNER. You don't know squat about worker co-ops. And your story falls flat on its face.

 

Sounds like you would prefer to be part of a WSDE. But what about guys like me who don't want to be a worker-owner but just want to show up and get a paycheck. Would we still be allowed to work for a BUSINESS OWNER and let them make profit off of us while we take home our steady paycheck?

 

Why not just work for a WSDE and not bother voicing an opinion at company meetings? Just sit there and get your superior paycheck and your protection from layoffs during bad times.

 

To each his own, right? I like being an employee and working for a business owner. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to do that, right?

 

BS of course if it worked or showed signs of working it would grow and grow or new business co-op's would form to compete with the old ones with unmotivated workers and failure to share profits. See why we say a liberalism lack the IQ to understand capitalism. Every business has its own style and culture and is free to go in any direction it wants but no co ops to speak of. Stupid liberal idea.

 

yes of course a top down violent scheme to organize society like 1000 others in history. Our genius founders made them all illegal here becuase they were all the same much like your Nazi plan for govt to take the land by force.

 

as I said land in China is more capitalist than in USA. Besides we are 100% positive that China just eliminated 40% of the planets poverty not with land scams but with free enterprise so that is what we want, not Nazi land grab scams like you propose.

The taxes the Chinese government derives from property are mostly based on title transactions. Unlike most other countries, China does not charge a holding cost for residential property. The largest source is the 3 percent tax on property value which is paid by the buyer for transferring the property rights. However, recurring property taxes are only raised from commercial property owners.

Recently, the government has introduced residential property tax in local pilot programs that are supposed to rebalance the Chinese real estate sector. Unfortunately, many of these programs have failed due to resistance from local authorities. The government would have to draw up a database of property ownership, but many residents and local officials refuse to reveal how many properties they own in the first place.

For the upcoming years, major financial reforms are in the planning, including ones affecting the property tax. This is why you should research this matter regularly or get in touch with your financial advisor before buying property in China.

 

That's right. You also like choices. The current thrust in all this is to have WSDEs alongside standard, traditional capitalist companies and let workers decide for themselves which they would rather work for/in.

 

So it's not a political issue. It's simply a matter of individual preference. I don't see why anyone would have an issue with that. As I said, my son works for a WSDE. I work for a traditional employer. Neither of us cares what the other does, because each of our choices suits each of us.

So why would WSDEs need to be discussed on a political forum, any more than Coke vs. soymilk would need to be discussed? Can't each of us make our own choice?