Potential Alternatives to the Capitalist System

Others also support it. MANY others support variously nuanced but fundamentally similar views, such as the four (count 'em, FOUR) Nobel laureates in economics who signed this open letter to Mikhail Gorbachev imploring him to use publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit, rather than giving it away to rich, greedy, privileged parasites in return for nothing:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_Mikhail_Gorbachev_(1990)

I would infinitely prefer (but am not optimistic) that the evil not resist justice by force; and land can never rightly be property. It is the landowner who is doing the stealing, as proved by the fact that landless working people toil their lives away and end up destitute, while idle landowners get rich while making no contribution whatever. You just want that system of institutionalized injustice, robbery and enslavement to continue because you prefer injustice to justice, evil to good.

 

I thought your system was depending upon the landowner to pay all the taxes. Isn't that a contribution?

 

Sure. But would no longer have to pay him for what government and the community provide.

Yes, it does.

No. His current property taxes are a small fraction of what he is stealing from the community. The value of the land is the exact measure of how much more the market expects him to steal from the community than he will repay in property taxes. You are claiming that if a thief takes $100 from me and then gives back $10, he is not a thief. But he is. Contrariwise, if he takes $100 and then gives it right back, he isn't.

GET IT???

Of course they can. They have free, secure tenure on their share of the available advantageous land of their choice. The landowners have no legal way to deprive them of it or remove them from it.

By restoring the workers' rights to liberty and thus their bargaining power. If people have their rights to liberty, they have options. They don't have to choose between working for subsistence and starving to death. It's the lack of options caused by landowning that enables employers to exploit workers. This is clear from history. When peasants had a right to use common land, they were able to sustain themselves at a healthy level. When the Enclosures deprived them of their liberty to use the land, they had to throw themselves on the mercy of factory owners, in desperate competition with thousands of their fellows, and were thus consigned to permanent destitution.

 

No, it's just repayment of what he is taking from the community. The current system does not require him to repay what he is taking. That is why you prefer it. You want to be able to take and not repay what you are taking. That much is obvious.

 

Over the years, I have read hundreds of critiques of Geoism, varying in their validity. I've read everything from the "they're Neo-Lib commies" to the fact that when Geoist refer to land the mean real estate/location simply because they understand to apply the terminology to something physical like "land" (soil and minerals, for example) is unworkable and highly flawed. But here is certainly the one critique that rises above all others. There is only one chart one needs to understand when referring to the Geogists system. It pertains to the one question that no one has been able to answer who supports such an elementally flawed approach:




Again, I will state it:

You advocate government as a means of land distribution but no distribution scheme in government has ever turned out different: those who seek power find such positions and manipulate it to their benefit. This always happens, whether democracy, communism or Geoism/Georgism. It turns out the same in the end. It is a shame you don't see that.


Geoism isn't a magic pill. It isn't an equitable solution. Nothing "objective" has been shown to "prove" that. It isn't even showing that it is the least equitable, because no matter the intent and precautionary measure the Geoist system, as BHK stated, will become a leviathan not unlike or even worse that what currently exists. They state over and over that it is the "least unfair" tax. The quote Friedman (I have a copy of Freedom and Capitalism on my desk at work and sometime have to shake my head at the context of which many quote are solicited) .You can put has many "GET IT??" after this as you want, you can call it a lie, it doesn't matter because in the 5000+ years of the history of government, nothing, and I mean NOTHING has been shown to contradict that chart.

And besides, option for a tax system that does the "least harm" is like "choosing the lesser of two evils" in an election. Look where that has gotten us as a country. Sorry, the only valid and MORAL choice is an option that does no harm at all and that means no government. If you think that popular sovereignty is the only valid option, then I would suggest reading some Proudhon and realizing that the only valid type of sovereignty is that of the individual. By consenting to Geoism, you relent to popular sovereignty, and there to its masters as well. In that instance, it is no different than any other form of slavery that government imposes.

oh....I almost forgot...


GET IT????

 

But that is because the right people have not been found to implement geoism correctly. (substitute communism, socialism, fascism, ... or any other command/control form of government).

 

I don't get the focus on land as opposed to all other matter. It seems inconsistent.

 

No, they've all been completely invalid.

No, land in economics means the physical universe aside from people and the products of their labor, the endowment of nature. More narrowly, it can mean the earth's solid surface.

I don't mind demolishing another one.

That's just some silly nonsense you made up. Even the most cursory research in the history department of any decent university will reveal that the people who know the most history are by no means anarchists.

Must you?

Nope. Just administration of possession and use -- which government always does, and only government does, because that's what government IS -- according to a FREE MARKET distribution. What part of "the high bid" are you having trouble understanding?.

They can try. Unlike capitalism and socialism, he geoist system gives them no legal way to do so.

No, that's just your silly "Meeza hatesa gubmint," nonsense.

I don't see it because it is not there. In Singapore, 90% of the land is government owned, and 85% of the housing, and it is known as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. According to your theory, that is impossible. According to mine, it is inevitable. Objective fact is consistent with my view, but not yours. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

True. It is only the results that make it seem like magic.

It is the ONLY POSSIBLE equitable solution, as already proved. There is no other way to avoid robbing everyone for the unearned profit of landowners.

Yes, it has. It is an indisputable objective fact that land was not produced by its owners or any previous owners. It is also an indisputable objective fact that land gets its unimproved value from government, the community, and nature, and not from the owner. It is also an indisputable objective fact that without the geoist solution, the landowner gets to pocket that value at the expense of everyone else.

No, that is a cretinous prediction with no basis in economics or history. Every human institution, like every human being, is imperfect. That doesn't mean they are all equally bad, or equally subject to corruption. The geoist system, uniquely, aligns the financial incentives of both government and the private sector with the public interest in efficient and productive use of land and effective allocation of public funds.

And have proved it.

Can you identify any incorrect quote? Of course not.

No, that's just an objectively false and permanently unsupported claim on your part. Just as one refutation, in ancient times and right up into the modern era, private tax farmers were engaged to collect taxes. Now we use salaried government tax collectors, and the system is much more efficient and much less oppressive and corrupt. Privatization of water supply services in Britain has led to higher prices, worse service, and lower quality.

No, it's like choosing good instead of evil.

I'm looking. What was it you said about knowledge of history?

What a puerile load of nonsense. If you think having no government does no harm, check out Somalia. Chanting, "Meeza hatesa gubmint," is not an argument, sorry.

The individual can't allocate exclusive possession and use of land, which is necessary to modern civilization.

Except that because it restores the individual right to liberty, it is the opposite of slavery.

Really, if the only "argument" you can offer against justice is that you hate government, why even bother? No reasonable person will pay the slightest attention to your nonsense.

 

Nope. It has always succeeded to the exact extent that it has been tried. But even places that don't get very close, like HK, reap massive benefits because at least they get closer than anywhere else. And it's not a command/control form of government, quite the opposite. It reduces the need for government to a minimum by achieving liberty and justice for all. You just can't find a willingness to deal in facts, can you?

 

Nope. Land is unique for a number of reasons, of which some important ones are that it is permanently fixed in extent and location, and its value comes exclusively from the surrounding community. The fact that it can't be moved, and its value comes from the community where it is located, makes that publicly created value the one uniquely optimal source of public revenue.

 

Just because you can't violate other people's property doesn't mean your liberty has been taken from you.

In fact, liberty is being able to control your own body and property but not other people's body and property.

 

The fact that it can't be moved doesn't make it any different. Land, like wood, iron, copper, and wheat, are gifts of nature. They are not created by man. Therefore, to claim exclusive possession of them, or any other matter, is a violation of my right to access what nature has provided.

 

Yes, it does, because it is inseparable from the community that gives it value. Exclusion from it inescapably deprives that community of access to opportunities it would otherwise have had.

Nope. Any wheat you have ever seen was created by labor, and I'll thank you to remember it. Probably any iron or copper you have ever seen (except in pictures) was also a product of labor, and not a gift of nature. I already proved that to you. Nature provided it where it was. The moment it is moved it is no longer what nature provided.

Nope. Objectively false. Nature provided them in their natural places. Removing them from those places made them no longer something nature provided, but a product of labor. Your right to liberty is only abrogated if you want, and are forcibly deprived of, access to them in their natural places at the time they are removed, in which case you are owed just compensation by the depriver. You know that copper and iron mined and refined into products are not something nature provided. You just have to contrive some way of not knowing it. So you refuse to know that the definition of a product of labor is nature-provided materials that have been removed from their natural locations and made into something of more value by human effort.

 

It does when that "property" is something I would otherwise have been at liberty to use. You are falsely claiming that if the government issued you a property deed to the letter A, entitling you to charge me rent for using it, that would not take my liberty from me because the letter is your "property." But that claim is self-evidently and indisputably false, so your "argument" is falsified.

So, in your objectively evil view, if government issued a property deed to the earth's atmosphere, and its owner declined to let me breathe any of his property, my liberty would be unimpaired.

Your position is just objectively evil. That will continue to be the case as long as you presume to dispute with me. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

 

Man did not make copper atoms, or iron atoms, or wood, or wheat. Nature made these products, so they are therefore a gift of nature, not produced by labor. Just like land. There is no difference. If you deny me access to the atoms that nature provided, you are abrogating my right to liberty, to access the gifts that nature has provided.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not arguing that.

No, that's not my view either.

You don't really seem to know what my position is, so how can you call my position evil.

 

The fact is that no significant country in the world is using this system. If it such an economic winner then why is it not being utilized ??

 

The only kind of system that benifits all is a sytem where everyone owned no rescources and shared all rescources. There would have to be rules that everyone agreed to, and everyone would have to share part of the burden of keeping society afloat. There could be no one group or one person in charge, and there would have to be a way to resolve conflicting opinions in a peaceful, non-violent way. Given all of that, its never going to happen, because people are greedy, selfish, self righteous, confrontational, and stubborn to change. Its our very nature. I am not saying that we can't change, just that it would be very hard. People have tried it in communes and other such communities, but I am not knowledgeable enough about those to know if it worked or not.

 

PosterBoy wrote:

<<<people are greedy, selfish, self righteous, confrontational, and stubborn to change. Its our very nature.>>>

Yes, but humans can also be creative, and cooperative to achieve wonderful things, eg, the building of the great cathedrals in the Middle Ages, with sometimes the entire community contributing toward the expense and labour of the building.

We are only at the start of the great human journey - there are still hunter-gatherer societies exisiting on earth in some isolated places!

<<<I am not saying that we can't change, just that it would be very hard.>>>

Indeed, history shows how hard progress is (slavery only formally abolished less than 200 years ago), but positive, global, social change with the goal of satisfying participation in the economy by and for everyone is achievable because technology will result in limitless abundance, removing the need to fight over resources. The key is public and private sectors operating side by side, with global oversight by an appropriately instituted IMF. Of course, one day war itself will be rendered obsolete, eg, with a UNSC without individual member veto power - that's when positive changes in the human condition will really accelerate.

(....and Trump would be pleased that the US was free of the expense of the role of world policeman......)

 

False. All the wheat you have ever eaten or seen was made by man, as was probably all the wood you have ever used. The fact that man did not make the atoms is completely irrelevant. "Man-made" MEANS that labor has taken atoms provided by nature from their natural places and fashioned them into something nature did not provide.

False. Nature provided what it provided, where it provided it. Everything man has made from that is man-made, by definition. You are just trying to redefine "man-made" to be a null set in order to avoid knowing the fact that capital is man-made but land is not.

False. Your claim is that a car is a gift of nature because its constituent atoms were at one time in their natural places. That claim is self-evidently false, absurd, and disingenuous.

You know that there is, and so does everyone else reading this. Your claim that a car is a gift of nature is literally absurd. No normally informed and intelligent six-year-old would credit it for a moment.

It's always the same. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

The more interesting corollary of Voltaire's penetrating observation is that those who would make you commit atrocities will first try to make you believe absurdities. The absurdities you are peddling here are intended to enable the atrocities committed in the name of property in land.

No, that is false. Nature provided the atoms where they were before labor removed them. After that, they were no longer what nature provided. You know this.

Of course you are. That's exactly what you claimed:

"Just because you can't violate other people's property doesn't mean your liberty has been taken from you."

Remember? So if the letter A is your property, and you won't let me use it unless I pay you rent, you claim that doesn't mean my liberty has been taken from me.

But it self-evidently and indisputably DOES mean that, and you know it.

Yes, of course it is. It's exactly what you claimed:

"In fact, liberty is being able to control your own body and property but not other people's body and property."

Remember?

So if the atmosphere is your property, and you won't let me breathe any of it, your view is that I have lost no liberty.

That claim is self-evidently absurd and evil.

You've stated very clearly what your position is: property titles that remove people's rights to liberty, such as deeds to land, slaves, letters of the alphabet, or the earth's atmosphere, do not cause anyone to lose any liberty.

That position is just self-evidently absurd and evil, so you decline to endorse it when it is stated clearly.

 

Wrong. China has been using a weak and imperfect form of it with self-evident success -- despite enormous problems caused by its socialist history and corrupt government -- for nearly 40 years. Hong Kong has been using it longest, with obviously spectacular results. Singapore and Monaco are partway there, too, but of course, like HK, they are not major countries. None of them is perfect or pure, but then no actual system ever is.

Hehe. Same reason college grads without work experience can't get jobs. Catch-22. Your question refutes itself.

 

China is a command/control governance which uses capitalism as an economic system. The Chinese gov can do whatever it wants.

Your answer makes no sense. The reason some college grads cannot get work is that there is no need for their specific training or the economies in which they reside are not growing as is the case in the US. So there appears to either be no need of the Georgian system.

 

A car isn't a gift of nature. Iron atoms are a gift of nature.

The atoms, wherever they happen to be located are a gift of nature. Did you make them? Nope. Nature did. They are a gift of nature.

The letter A is unownable, because it's not a thing. It's an idea.

If you say so. I didn't say that.

Nope. Didn't say I support slavery.

Nope. Those can't be owned, because they don't exist.

You didn't state my position. You made up a position and attributed it to me. Nice work.

 

We generally just continue to argue, instead of changing local and regional laws to more closely match the 10 happiest countries, according to Wikipedia:
-
-
1 Denmark 7.526 out of 10

2 Switzerland 7.509

3 Iceland 7.501

4 Norway 7.498

5 Finland 7.413

6 Canada 7.404

7 Netherlands 7.339

8 New Zealand 7.334

9 Australia 7.313

10 Sweden 7.291

Anyone that wants to go back to US slavery, German Nazis, or Russian commies is a total (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

1) its really stupid to imagine that laws make you happy
2) why not tell us what law would make us most happy??

 

"Wrong. China has been using a weak and imperfect form of it with self-evident success "

China has been a huge success thanks to the switch to Republican Capitalism. Not a person on earth let alone an economist would be stupid enough to agree that China's success is due do govt land ownership.