No, it is literally only figuratively mixing labor with the land. Labor is human effort. Land is the earth's solid surface. It is physically impossible to mix them. If you understand what a metaphor is.
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!" See? You could not respond with economics, so you had to change the subject from "taxing land rent" to "George's Single Tax." I don't recall anyone on this forum ever advocating George's Single Tax. Contentless bloviation beneath response. If they are only "Georgists" in the same sense that you consider me a "Georgist," then no, you actually haven't. But you call them all Georgists, so somehow, they are all lying, and you are the only one telling the truth...? Sure you are, Raver. Sure you are. One can quote Plato positively without being a Platonist, Nietzsche positively without being a Nietzschean, etc. So you have just admitted that you don't actually have any evidence that they are Georgists, and are just makin' $#!+ up again, as usual. No, that's just a bald fabrication on your part. None has ever said or implied any such thing. It's incorrect and disingenuous to call identification of facts "pretending."
There are indeed sheep. Same ignorance of economics, same emotionism and same one liners without economic content. Weird!
And wolves to prey on them.... Same groundless dismissals, disingenuous strawmen, and refusals to address facts of economics on your part, too. Weird!
You do love a cliche! There's just no economics. Sorry. I'd love to say otherwise, but you're a perfect example of bluff. Asked for content and you come out with orthodox neoclassicalism. You can't weaponise your Georgism. You only have the hope that your opposition knows no economics.
Cliches are cliches for a reason. You know that is baldly false. <sigh> Which is somehow, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," at once both orthodox and not economics.... Filth beneath contempt. No, I only have the hope that they can somehow find a willingness to learn some. Except in your case, of course: there is no conceivable hope of such an outcome.
You'd make a great apologist for privilege, injustice, and evil. Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you already are one.
There you go again with your rant over content. You even manage to support my original comment. Why don't any of your comments actually include economic critique?
Land is not a human being. Owning land is not the same as owning a slave. There is no comparison. If you would like access to land, there is plenty of land for sale.
<yawn> True. Neither is the earth's atmosphere. But owning one is similar to owning the other. <yawn> True. Just as owning the earth's atmosphere and making people work for air to breathe is not the same as owning a slave and making him work to avoid a whipping. "If you would like to breathe, you are perfectly free to buy all the air you need from me!"
I think you're confusing me with someone who claims to be able to own the earth's atmosphere. I'm talking about owning a 50x100 plot of land.
Sure. Just as few slave owners forcibly captured and fettered their slaves. They just bought them from some previous owner. But the first owner always forcibly captured them, just as the first owner of your land forcibly appropriated it from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it. I'm just trying to work out how you think it is relevant to the wrongfulness of slavery that a given slave owner did not forcibly capture and fetter his slaves himself.
I think you're confusing me with someone who advocates slavery. I don't. So your arguments against slavery will be met with approval from me. But, as I said earlier, my neighbor owning his 50 x 100 plot of land has nothing to do with slavery.
No. In fact, I'm not even confusing you with someone who is able to engage in an honest discussion of how facts relate to principles. So, more like owning a license to steal a few cents from each of millions of people. That's what I thought. You think that because none of them will miss the few cents you take, you are not stealing from them; that because they are "free" to buy their own licenses to steal, they are not being stolen from. That about it?
You seem to be confusing me with someone who wants to steal a few cents from each of millions of people. I'm not arguing for that. I oppose stealing people's money. How much straw do you have left?
No confusion here. You advocate the forcible removal of people's rights to liberty, and the transfer of those rights to others as their private property. That's chattel slavery. You just advocate slavery imposed one right at a time instead of one person at a time. Yes, in fact you do, as proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where landowning was well established, but government did not intervene massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners. They haven't to date. Oh, but it does, and I have proved it to you.
Again, you're wrong. I don't advocate chattel slavery. Please stop saying I do. I have clearly stated I don't. My neighbor owning his 50 x 100 plot of land has nothing to do with slavery. He enslaves no one by doing what millions and millions of others do.
No confusion here. That is exactly what you want to do. Yes, of course you are. You only want to own land because it enables you legally to steal from everyone else. No you don't. You just advocate stealing it legally, through privilege, rather than illegally through fraud or stealth. I have identified the literal content of your views.
I'm afraid you don't know what the word "steal" means. It means to take someone's property without their permission. Owning a plot of land doesn't steal anyone else's property.
No, I have proved I am correct. Right: you advocate real estate slavery. But your claim about your beliefs is factually incorrect, as I have proved. It most certainly does, as I have proved repeatedly. He owns a tiny slice of everyone else's rights to liberty. He is forcibly depriving every homeless person of a place to sleep. He enslaves a tiny slice of everyone, just as they do
I don't think you understand what "enslave" means. My neighbor who owns a 50 x 100 plot of land doesn't enslave anyone.
No, more accurately, you are afraid that I do. No it doesn't. It means to deprive someone of what they would otherwise have. One's identity, for example, is not one's property, but it can be stolen. A passport is the property of the issuing government, but can be stolen from the bearer. Etc. You are just objectively wrong again, as usual. It steals a tiny portion of their right to liberty.
No, you are aware that I do. He helps all the other landowners enslave everyone, and profits from their enslavement accordingly.
No, that's not what it means. That may be the reason for your confusion. So it doesn't actually steal anything from anyone. Got it.
