Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

So you want the King (Govt) to own all the land, and the peasants (people) to rent it from the King.

 

Why are you falsely and disingenuously pretending that kings are the same as democratically accountable governments?

No, no one and no institution can rightly own land, as I have told you many times. But government's rightful JOB is to administer possession and use of the land under its sovereign authority in trust for the people, to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all. Administration in trust is not ownership. You know this.

Whom should one pay for the advantages of secure, exclusive land tenure and access to the desirable public services and infrastructure accessible from a given location but the provider of those advantages? Why would one ever pay an idle, privileged parasite for those things when they do not provide them?

 

No, that's just nonsense with no basis in fact.

Just admit you want to be legally entitled to charge me full market value just for your permission to exercise my right to liberty, why dontcha?

 

So .. yes, to both.

The Middle Ages called, they want their idea back.

 

Perhaps a marquise?

 

Right. We have a state that recognizes land property rights and deeds. So we're good then. That's what I want too.

 

Anarchy is what exists now.
Look at broken nations everywhere.

Look at Pompeo re Hongkong, urging us to conflict with China.

Chaos and anarchy.

 

Yes. Anarchy is what we have now. And you would prefer....?

 

The concept of legal war represents a failure of intelligence.

Lack of clarity. An international rules based system is simply an extension of rule of law into the jurisdiction over international affairs, which obviously requires modification of the concept of absolute national sovereignty.

Obviously. the veto allowed the great powers to avoid setting up the necessary machinery, which would consist if an ICJ backed by a UNSC with 99% of the world's military force...to guarantee upholding the principles enshrined in the UNUDHR. [Feel free to outline the Rights in that document that you find offensive].

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle! I didn't expect to take the Chinese side.
But surely you know I'm merely pointing out the consequences of the lack of an international rules based system, in which the war mongers on either side will be urging us all forward to another catastrophe.

Certainly, the Pentagon bears the major responsibility for war mongering at present, as Trump (and Bannon and Bolton and the other 'America First' supremacists) desperately resist China's rise to economic superiority. Expect the culture/economic wars to get really ugly.

 

Did you miss it?

An international rules based system......

 

A single world state?

 

The continual reduction in public housing stock, matched by increasing levels of homelessness, means the model has been practically destroyed.

Guess why the government has been reducing its stock of public housing over the last three decades....

Answer: the triumph of neoliberal economic orthodoxy, which has convinced us all that the government's money is our money aka taxpayer money etc etc.

But heterodoxy teaches us the sovereign currency issuing government, unlike private sector banks, can issue debt free money without causing inflation so long as the resources exist* on which to spend that money.

*did you read the story about the beaver? He doesn't NEED a bank.

 

No. Jurisprudence over the appropriate area of law, whether it be local, state, national or international.

Each jurisprudence has clearly separated responsibilities.

 

So anarchy then? No ruler?

 

How is rule of law = "no ruler"? Please explain. We might learn something.

Note: the justices of an ICJ - concerned ONLY with international law - can be elected by national governments.

 

So one state again? Can't you make up your mind?

 

So you cannot explain rule of law = "no ruler".

You are exposed.

OTOH, to your question above: is the USA one state or fifty states?

 

So are you advocating anarchy or one single world state?

Also, to answer your question, 50 states. That's what united STATES means.

 

No I'm advocating rule of law. Explain how rule of law = no ruler. You remain exposed...

And there are 200 nations in the UN, that's what united NATIONS means. Except we don't have the machinery for implementation of rule of international law yet, as we do have the machinery for rule of law in the 50 states of the USA. The former is yet to be created.

However...to return to the OP, the USA itself is barely a model of good governance , because it's neoliberal economic system is failing to implement an economy that works for all.

Solution : adoption of MMT (rather than taxing the top income bracket at 99%):

the sovereign currency issuing government, unlike private sector banks, can issue debt free money without causing inflation so long as the resources exist* on which to spend that money.

"It's the economy, stupid".

 

Rule of law ratified and executed by what?

 

I shall name my land "Queensbury"!

 

Yes, well, lots of our institutions do.

Bingo. It requires enforcement, and that requires legitimation. How legitimate is a vote of illegitimate dictatorships?

IOW, you're dreaming.

I'm not taking a side where both sides are in the wrong.

The problem is an international system that treats national governments as equals when they are not.

Oh, I do. The USA is going to find that its privilege-based economic system is a two-edged sword, and China is quite capable of wielding it.

 

Because it issued and enforces them in its rightful role as administrator of possession and use of land, as a service to landowners. You just don't want to repay the state for its services to you. You want to take what the state legally entitles you to take, but not pay for what you take. Simple.

So you agree that the state, as the rightful administrator of possession and use of land, would be perfectly within its rightful mandate to require landholders to repay more of the subsidies it gives them?

We're good then. That's what I want too.

 

What part of "no" don't you understand?

I guess if you can't understand, "no," then "democratically accountable" is way out of your reach.