Wealth Tax >>>MOD WARNING<<<

No argument justifying slavery, but your claims of landowning being similar to slavery is most certainly a non sequitur, and you have never, not one time either refuted anything or proved anything. All you have done is rant the same nonsense over and over.

 

There is no way that they will drop the non sequiturs, they can't. There would be no argument if they accept that owning land is in no way equal to or relative to owing slaves. Owning land is the acceptable manner of having possession of land in 99.99% of the world. To my knowledge it is not acceptable to own slaves anywhere in the world. There is moral illegitimacy to owning another person. That is not true of owning land. Thus the claim that slavery is comparable to owning land is, as you so capably put it, a non sequitur. The issues presented are not the only problem in this discussion. There is also the obnoxious manner in which some things are stated. Calling a group of people who are doing what is morally and legally recognized ugly names is obnoxious. Calling opinions of others "bald faced lies" is obnoxious. Few of us have any issues telling the opposition what we believe to be the truth. Saying it is a lie is calling that person a lie, no matter how they try to get around the words.

BTW, there is no reason to wade through all their fallacies. Once an obvious fallacy has been stated all of the rest of the post can be expected to be just as fallacious.

But, I don't expect anything to change.

 

Already proved false by the indisputable facts of history. Before WW I, it was normal for people to be able to cross international borders without passports or any kind of limit on their movement. Oddly enough, that did not stop governments from being able to tell the difference between peaceful immigrants and foreign armies. Inability to distinguish between such obviously different entities typically results from believing absurdities designed to enable atrocities.

 

Buying property makes ownership rightful.
Buying slaves is buying property.
Therefore ownership of slaves one bought is rightful.

Clearly, a ridiculous conclusion. So, clearly, the premise is false. Thus the argument turns *poof* to dust.

Nobody claimed slavery is analogous to land. If you meant to refer to land ownership, then you're just assuming the conclusion and it's thus a question begging fallacy.

 

If you compare owning land to slavery that is a non sequitur.

 

​

- - - Updated - - -

The castaway you asked about is not a fellow countryman.


​

 

ROTFL!! No, of course it wasn't. By that "logic," pointing out that a pimp raping a prostitute violates her rights just as an owner of the atmosphere charging people rent for air to breathe violates their rights would also be "comparing land with labor." But that is clearly an absurd and dishonest recasting with no relation to reality.

OTC, I have proved they are not only very comparable but in many important ways virtually equivalent -- which explains the invariably slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY where capitalist landowning is well established, but government does not intercede massively on behalf of the landless through minimum wages, public health care, union monopolies, welfare, public old age pensions, etc. to rescue them from effective enslavement by landowners.

The astronomical value of land just flat-out proves you wrong. There is just no getting around that. Land could not possibly be worth so much if land rent were not likewise astronomical.

LOL! Absurd. Just as one example, a large fraction of our local public transit "police" are making over $100K/yr for what is basically security guard work that only pays $30K/yr in the non-union private sector. There are many examples of unionized public employees -- firemen, police officers, even prison guards -- in places like California getting six-figure annual pensions that non-union workers in similar jobs can't even dream of.

Wages are often far higher for equivalent jobs that require very little education, as proved above.

Evasion.

I could not be less interested in, or persuaded by, your Marxist context (dnsmith won't be your friend any more, either).

No. The astronomical value of land just flat-out proves you wrong. There is no way you can even dispute that.

 

Well, you just assumed he was an invader. It follows quite nicely that you would think so just the same of your fellow countrymen who seem to have no right to exist unless landowners are nice enough to allow them access to opportunity. I was clearly demonstrating that landownership at least partially enslaves others (depending on how much land is available). Did you know that it was common post abolition that former slaves still ended up working like slaves for plantation owners simply because all the good land was taken and thus their non existent bargaining power forced them to work on slave like terms anyways?

 

Don't forget about those California lifeguards with six figure salaries and six figure pensions.

 

Entering a region with the intention of occupying it, is invading. By definition.


​

 

So, all landowners are invaders then? Be a little clearer.

 

Slavery is not comparable to owning land.

1 country out of hundreds.

You have provided no valid arguments to refute, ergo no need for counter argument.

Not for over 100 years, and certainly not since either you or I have come to this earth.

Are you seriously saying tha BALD FACED LIES AND BALD FALSE HOOD IS NOT EQUAL?

Baloney! (and that one word is more of an argument than your entire post.)

 

No. I have proved it is not. I have proved that both morally and economically, there is little to choose between them. Here is another proof:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war
broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky
home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old
negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God,
I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented
with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper
now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents
they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled
to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were
compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he
could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have
got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis, August 15, 1885.

 

If that were true (it's not), then anyone who ever moved has been an invader.

You continue to post additional examples of the absurdities intended to enable atrocities.

 

Thank you for another fine example of absurdities intended to enable atrocities.

Timothy McVeigh was. Your "argument" above therefore instantly fails.

 

You continue to have trouble understanding what proof is, or what it means to prove something. Your declarations are not proof, they are your opinion, which are more often than not incorrect.

Owning land is in no way analogous to slavery, and it's idiotic to keep claiming it is.

 

There is no logic in comparing land to slavery.

I'm a land owner. I wouldn't call myself rich mind you. I also know that there is much more economic rent in exploiting workers. The problem for you is that your Georgism only greeted relevance in pre-industrialisation societies. Now its a minor issue. Georgists continue to be irrelevant to modern economics. Georgism continues to be only really applied to specific issues such as environmentalism. There is no conspiracy in this. It just reflects how economic relations have radically changed since the days where we can moan about land ownership and the disastrous effects on the peasants.

Its just matter of fact to note that, whilst public sector workers are paid more, they tend to also have higher education levels. A firman isn't a rent seeker. They can, however, be more successful than other public sector workers (with unions impacting on wage norms). This type of analysis, however, is avoided by the Georgist as it necessarily requires labour market analysis independent of the land script.

The rate of return on education is significant and substantial. There's no point in denying the importance of human capital. Its just factual to note that wages will not completely reflect human capital (leading to the neoclassical's underpayment or the Marxist's exploitation)

I'm no Marxist but to ignore Marxism will assuredly limit your understanding of capitalism. See, for example, how labour theory adapted ideas originating from Marxism to understand the concept of efficiency wages.

 

If allowed to succeed, invaders can come to own the land they invaded. Palestine for example has been invaded and changed ownership many times.


​

 

Occupation isn't the only way to acquire lands.


​

 

We didn't call Timothy McVeigh an enemy combatant and repel him at our boarders. We demonstrated Timothy committed mass terrorism and treason, then we killed him.

The increase in boarder control precautions (like requiring a passport) being related to the fact that it is currently more difficult to distinguish between enemy combatants and peaceful immigrants, has nothing to do with Timothy McVeigh or how we respond to internal threats. You might want to consider 9/11 instead.


​

 

If it were, then the land should be freed (as we freed slaves). But instead of arguing for an end to what he contends is a human rights violation, Roy want's to continue that presumed violation. Just use it as an excuse to redistribute wealth indefinitely.


​

 

What some of those people don't realize is that even having strong opinions different from one another, we are not as obnoxious and insulting when we post such opposition. A little respect goes a long way. I believe we share many opinions even if we don't agree on all. Most important are the needs for progressive income taxation, to help the have nots, good public education, universal medical care and the dignity of labor.

One of my biggest reasons for opposing LVT as a single tax is the way that it allows landless millionaires to excape taxation.

 

If land was a human being, you might have a point. But it works a little differently.

Exclusive land tenure is a necessity in our economy. So, yes, human's natural rights will be violated. The question is, how do you minimize the impact of this violation of human's natural rights? The answer is clear: Have the holder of such privilege pay it's full rental value in return for the privilege for the benefit of all and give people universal individual exemptions for a certain amount of land by value.

Why do you endorse the massive redistribution of wealth from producers to landowners? We seek to put an end to that redistribution of wealth by lifting the tax burden off production and onto idle privilege ownership.

 

How are human rights violated if there is land tenure? Even with LVT the person paying the tax on the land has exclusive rights so long as he pays the tax. How is that different from a person with a deed who has exclusive rights so long as they pay property tax on the land and any improvements?

How does massive redistribution of wealth from producers get to landowners? What idle privilege of ownership are you ranting about? Landowners who develop their property and put it at the disposal of producers have a right to a return on their investment for both the purchase of the land and the cost of the development. Just like a person who buys stock in a company has the right to the dividends and any increase in value there may or may not be in the stock. Why is a land owner any less entitled to a return on the land in the form of rent (dividends) and the increase in value that might occur? (Usually because his tax $$$ paid for the infrastructure and development making his land and that around him higher in value) You people don't make a lick of sense, especially since a person making millions without owning land gets away with no taxes if there is LVT as a single tax. (the only valid reason it would ever be considered is to eliminate other taxes)

 

It does. Owning a man is not the same as owning land. Home ownership is not slavery. Could you explain that to Roy?


​