The problem of Capitalism

Its a simple question as the comparison is over outcome: You don't care that the landless had lower life expectancy then?

 

Happy for you to tell me how someone chucked into a Poorhouse with life expectancy of 19 has quality of life. Good luck!

 

it's an irrelevant deflection that I won't let you get away with.

 

Its an obvious question as its a comparison of injustice and economic result: You don't care that the landless had lower life expectancy then?

 

deflection that has no relevance to anything I've posted.

 

More troll. You really shouldn't be on this forum if you can't answer a simple question: You don't care that the landless had lower life expectancy then?

 

I'm not impressed with manufactured facts. Those numbers are not representative of the US at that time. Perhaps the UK was different.

If the land was taken from the people by legal means , the ownership of that land was never secure. In which case it was not ownership at all. I don't believe you are advocating slavery as a solution to poverty, owning land or possessing land is not a guarantee of a life above poverty.

Is there any longer a point to this thread?

 

You're not impressed with evidence? Wowsers!

Britain is the classic example of the impact of land ownership. Georgists were predated by the True Levellers after all...

Its not about legality. It is about how the assault on the commons led to conditions worse than slavery.

I'm not even supporting my personal position here. I'm stating the obvious. The Georgists are completely correct in stating that land ownership guaranteed a lack of justice. The severity of that injustice shouldn't be ignored (but centrists obviously cannot see it)

At the moment the other fellow is just trolling. He can't make a relevant remark and keeps repeating himself. Shame really.

 

I know. You should stop that.

I have no obligation to, nor do I care. It's entirely irrelevant to anything I've posted.

 

Even that is a troll. Tut tut

It's a bit obvious that, to compare injustice, comparing living outcomes is perfectly appropriate. You've just been caught out, given economic history proves the landless were worse off. Forced labour was coupled with much lower life expectancy.

I feel for centrists. Even the right winger can be right some of the time!

 

Clearly the fellow isn't capable of logical reply. We know that the Georgists are right. Its not possible to have justice unless land ownership is transformed. In its current state it ensures injustice (such as homelessless) and inefficiency (such as property hoarding). To argue against that obvious point is going to guarantee nonsensical comment.

The real problem with the Georgists is that they do not go far enough in their critique of rentier capitalism. There needs to be consideration of the corporation and ultimately the protection of property rights through worker ownership.

 

What is the name of the worker-owned company to which you belong?

 

The lower life expectancy is a result of poor choices. Diet, exercise, substance abuse, smoking, dangerous behaviours, etc etc.

 

Still in Victorian London?

 

Gave me a belly chuckle!

 

"We are returning to a Victorian era of haves and have nots. The wealth gap is widening to a yawning abyss not seen since the turn of the last century". Sounds like you've been too busy pandering to the plastic libertarians to keep up-to-date...

 

Sounds like the same boring old rhetoric tossed about by bottom-dwelling politicians. No wonder that you eat it right up.

 

That's right .. just look at the symptoms and ignore the cause. That'll surely help.

Just make sure you don't DO anything.

 

I'll fight the Army and the Royal Navy, if I don't get me some gin tonight.

 

This amused me as it demonstrates your plastic libertarian nature. Cheers! Those extreme inequalities aren't just inefficient. They reflect how frontier capitalism has run amok through cronyism.

 

You're not making sense. That's the problem when you pander to the right wing

The use of economic history is rather pertinent. I've been referring to the drastic consequences of land ownership and an economy corrupted by rent seeking behaviour. We have that today with knobs on. Rather than just referring to land, we have to consider rents acquired by corporations (drastically increased through cronyism).

The irony is that the fake libertarians helped derive this outcome. They created the initial demand for neoliberalism. Market fundamentalism, rather than anything consistent with theoretical free markets, festered into the ideal conditions for rentier capitalism. And they haven't even feckin apologised!

 

What steps toward sharing did you take today, Reivs? How's the armchair?

 

It is.

Cronyism wouldn't exist without the state and will always exist in some form as long as the state exists. You endorse the existence of a state, therefor you endorse cronyism.

 

Is that the best you can muster? No support for neoliberalism? No critique of it? No acknowledgement of how the fake libertarians enabled rentier capitalism?

Try content, just for the crack.

 

Content (of character) is only evidenced in actions. Words are cheap.