The problem of Capitalism

The people living in the same jurisdiction.

Proceeds are revenue received in a transaction. The payment in this case is for secure, exclusive tenure and the publicly created advantages that go with it.

Oppression, injustice and waste under the current system vs liberty, justice and economic efficiency with the proposed system.

 

That is absurd and disingenuous nonsense. Whose production am I taking? That's right: no one's. Whose production does the landowner take in return for no contribution? The land user's. Whose rights to liberty does he take with no compensation? Everyone's. The landowner is therefore indisputably the thief, and I am indisputably not.

It does no such thing, and you know it. You have to pay a landowner full market value for permission to own land, and you know it. Why do you pretend you do not?

If you have to pay someone else for permission to do something, it's not a right.

That's self-evidently nothing but a bald falsehood: the landowner's privilege of demanding I pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide prevents me.

Other than the fact that they are thieving parasites and I am not...

The only "flaw" is your refusal to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

 

Yes, it does. An owner can exclude others, depriving them of their rights to liberty, without making just compensation.

No. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. I have already explained the crucial differences between feudalism and the system I propose.

 

But they had the opportunity to buy their liberty rights from their owners, just as the landless have with landowners.

Just as slaves were completely free to buy their rights to liberty from their owners whenever they liked.

Or not buy their rights to liberty from their owners at all, if they didn't care for that level of autonomy...

 

You know it has not.

I have an absolute right to take any property that anyone owns if it consists of my rights.

Unless I am not.

LOL! Perhaps there are people stupid enough to think slavery was defeated by individual abolitionists going around forcibly restoring individual slaves' rights to liberty. But I am not one of them.

You know I have proved they are not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent. Denying the fact that owning land means owning everyone else's liberty rights to use it is evil.

 

That's indisputably not my plan because I plan justly to compensate you for abrogating them. Your plan is indisputably to own mine, though, because you intend to violate them without making just compensation.

 

You know it has not, and that I have comprehensively and conclusively refuted all attempts to do so.

Everyone always has an absolute right to their rights, even if someone else thinks they own them.

Like the abolitionists were...?

<yawn> There is a difference between fear and strategy, a difference you obviously cannot understand.

Perhaps there are people stupid enough to think slavery was defeated by individual abolitionists going around forcibly restoring individual slaves' rights to liberty. But I am not one of them. Seems like you might be, though....

You know I have proved they are not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent. Denying the fact that owning land means owning everyone else's liberty rights to use it is evil.

 

Thank you for the demonstration of your consistently disgraceful trolling. It has reassured me and probably many other readers that I must indeed be right to have attracted such unworthy opposition.

 

You mean PAYMENT? Sorry to break it to you, but we all have to pay for property.

 

So if you have that right, that means everyone else does too. Cool. So when 20 people all want the same patch of land, they can ..... what? Offer more in 'compensation' (aka, PAYMENT) than the other 19? Like ... an auction?

Again, what a freaking innovation

 

Nothing of the sort. Very few slaves had the freedom to choose (pro tip: that's why they called it 'slavery'). ALL Americans are free to choose, in the 21stC.

 

Oh, so your 'Govt Controllers' will never exclude anyone from any given piece of land? Those beachfront plots are going to be very crowded.

 

1) On any given day? You do realise that under your glorious system, people will simply move to wherever the best returns/views/lands are, dontcha, since it's all so easy? There could never be any 'community' under your system, as there can be when folk have personlly invested at great cost, over many many years.

2) So, exactly the same as buying property.

3) When all members of a society are free to choose land ownership, because no further institutional or legal barriers remain, justice has been achieved. If you remain angry despite that, it's either because you don't like what is required to achieve that goal, or you don't like what PEOPLE are choosing. And yet you blame it all on the very institutions which fought and worked so hard for that freedom (to choose).

 

It is expected that people will be attracted to a jurisdiction that offers them more liberty, justice and prosperity.

No, that's just false and absurd garbage with no basis in fact. There are many historical examples of communities emerging very quickly when people have common interests: mining camps, military bases, etc.

No. It's the same difference as between paying a baker for a loaf of bread and paying a thief who stole it from the baker. Not the same thing at all.

That's a self-contradiction, classic Orwellian doublethink. Land ownership inherently removes their freedom to choose: they have to pay a landowner for permission to choose.

Ownership is itself the legal and institutional barrier, as you know.

No. That's just self-evidently false and absurd. You could with equal "logic" claim that justice is achieved by the taxi medallion system because everyone who wants to operate a taxi is "free" to "choose" to pay a medallion holder for a medallion.

I don't like the fact that if someone wants to operate a taxi, they are required to pay a medallion holder hundreds of thousands of dollars for permission to achieve that goal. Likewise, I don't like the fact that if someone wants to use land under exclusive tenure, they are required to pay a greedy, privileged parasite just for permission to own land.

The choices people make to abrogate others' rights without making just compensation are by definition evil, and no, I don't like them.

The institutions forcibly REMOVED people's freedom without just compensation.

 

No, they'll exclude, WITH JUST COMPENSATION, anyone not welcomed by those who have made just compensation to the community for exclusive tenure.

They might be, if that's their most appropriate and productive use.

 

False.

False. Most slaves have had that "freedom" to "choose" to purchase their rights to liberty from their owners, and they called it slavery because individual slaves' rights to liberty had been forcibly stripped from them and transferred to others.

Garbage. Their rights to liberty and choice have been forcibly stripped from them and given to the privileged, especially landowners, as their private property.

 

Pretty much. That's one easily understandable market solution.

The innovation is in who RECEIVES the payment -- the party that creates the value rather than a greedy, privileged parasite who does not -- not in who makes the payment or how much it is.

 

Yes, you have to pay for stolen property just as for rightfully owned property. But paying a thief the value of stolen property is not justice. Paying the creator of the value is.

GET IT????

 

You have never shown any such thing, as you know. You just claim it with zero (0) factual or logical basis, which is all you will ever do.

Already proved false many times.

As the abolitionists were...?

I have proved in several different ways that they are not only comparable, not only similar, but effectively equivalent.

No, it's just some silly $#!+ you made up, and repeat ad nauseam.

 

Thank you for the additional demonstration of your consistently disgraceful trolling. It has reassured me and probably many other readers that I must indeed be right to have attracted such unworthy opposition.

 

Thank you for the additional demonstration of your consistently disgraceful trolling. It has reassured me and probably many other readers that I must indeed be right to have attracted such unworthy opposition.

 

Call it whatever you like - call the 'controllers' whatever you like, it amounts to exactly the same thing. PAYING for land. There is literally not a jot of difference. If an individual wants a particular patch of land, they must pay for it.

 

What freaking difference does that make to Joe Citizen when he's PAYING FOR LAND? Besides, I'd wager that considerably more than 50% of Joe Citizens would be horrified to think that they were paying some Shadow Controller, instead of another Joe Citizen.

 

Please spell out the exact legislation which prevents individual citizens from purchasing property. Then detail the institutional preventions. What, EXACTLY, is preventing people from buying land in America?

 

1) so .. PAYMENT?

2) so the 2000 people who each want that quarter acre beachfront lot can all occupy it?