Wealth Tax >>>MOD WARNING<<<

Ownership of the sunlight or of the atmosphere also isn't ownership of human beings, yet, if I had a title to either of those and charged human beings rent for it, I'd say I'm enslaving human beings. So, clearly, just because ownership of a natural resource isn't the same as ownership of a human, the end result can be practically the same for all intents and purposes.

 

Given non-excludability of consumption, you're not going to make a logical case with these examples

 

That's irrelevant to the hypothetical. You clearly don't know how a hypothetical or how logic works. Plus, who knows, future technology may make it possible.

Also, it's one thing to split a post into smaller pieces and reply to it that way, but it's an entirely different thing to always snip away half or more of the post you're replying to, and you even do it mid sentence.

 

Clearly not, as you've referred to a hypothetical situation where the market could not operate.

Your position has got increasingly weaker. You started with historical comment of no relevance today. You then made bogus reference to monopoly. You've now used a hypothetical situation which made no sense, given the inability to create a market (and therefore your 'perceived' rent-seeking)

 

Do you know what logical fallacies are, Reiver?

I simply demonstrated that rahl is committing the ignoratio elenchi fallacy by saying that because owning land and owning humans isn't the same that the relevant point we are making cannot be true and that you cannot compare other characteristics of the two or that the two cannot have strikingly similar end results.

It had nothing to do with whether or not the market could operate.

 

Person A: Eating too much pie can make you sick. Eating too much fish & chips can make you sick.
Person B: Eating pie isn't the same as eating as eating fish & chips. The two are not analogous.

Do you think person B just made a sound argument against the point person A made? Do you think that because eating pies and eating fish & chips isn't the same it's therefore not true that eating too much fish & chips can make you feel sick?

What person B does is essentially what rahl does.

 

You referred to a hypothetical situation that made no sense and only attacked your own argument.You need to break free of that error. Can you refer to an embedding of Georgist rhetoric within 'modern economics'? I can only refer to environmentalism. Do you have anything more substantial?

 

Practice your reading comprehension and learn about logical fallacies.

 

You've been set a task my dear friend: Can you refer to an embedding of Georgist rhetoric within 'modern economics'? Good luck!

 

Argumentum ad novitatem.

 

You've been asked a simple question. If you dodge again I will assume you know that Georgism is indeed irrelevant to modern economics

 

Except it's not the same

 

Obviously, owning land and owning a human being isn't exactly the same. But just because they're aren't exactly the same doesn't mean other characteristics of the two cannot be compared or cannot have a striking similarity, i.e, the impact with respect to natural rights, liberty, etc.

Impress us, stop with the ignoratio elenchi fallacy, and actually address the relevant points we are making and the arguments and examples we have provided.

In the meantime, I'm going to start counting sheep.

 

When you make a valid argument I'll address it. If your going to continue ignorantly spouting non sequiturs, well...............

 

You do realize that owning sunlight is a whim, or corralling the atmosphere such that you could own it is nonsense, but the land is tangible, divisible, taxable, occupiable, ownable. None of those actions with land enslaves humans in any way and the results are not the same or even close. Even in your dream world of non-ownership of land the occupier has exclusive use of the land with tenure so long as the tax is paid and it is accessible only at the pleasure of the one who owns the rights to the land. IOW your whole premise is passe' and unworkable in a modern economy.

- - - Updated - - -

What difference does it make, the second half of your posts don't make any more sense than the first half.

 

Having read his logic I would say yes he does and he stays away from fallacies. It would be a good idea if you were to do the same.

Your relevant point is not true no matter how you compare the characteristics of the two and there are no similarities in the end results. Because slavery and landownership are not comparable in any way.

 

Your logical fallacy is not only that the two are not the same, the results of neither is comparable to the other. One has a natural right to breath, to experience personal liberty within the parameters set by the society in which one resides, but no one has a natural right to occupy any space; only that space which is open to the public or that space for which they have attained tenure or that space into which they are invited. My space is my space. You have no right to it unless I choose to give you access, and you have no right to any specific space except under those circumstances.

Actually you have been expressing a fallacy in logic in the sense you think you have proved a point when in fact you have not. In other words you have been touting irrelevant conclusions.

 

It answers your question as to why we didn't go to war with Saudi Arabia when Al-Qaeda attacked us.

The fact that your Crusoe is giving Friday a choice to leave Crusoe's homeland if he doesn't want to obey it's laws, demonstrates that it's not slavery. Slaves are property, they are not given a choice of freedom.

That your Friday's other options are dire, doesn't make it slavery anymore than when U.S. expels illegal immigrants from our borders who may face hardships or even death sentences in their homelands. If we give some the option to remain in our home, we also require they obey our laws. We enforce those laws with guns.


​

 

Eating too much dog poop also makes you sick. Person A's argument doesn't prove home ownership is slavery or pie is fish & chips any more than it proves anything edible is dog poop.


​

 

So? You think that's relevant to me identifying the fallacy rahl is committing? By all means, if rahl thinks our argument and comparison between slavery and landownership is faulty, he/she's been given ample opportunity for him to address the arguments and the examples we've provided to that effect. He hasn't done so even once. It's all question begging and ignoratio elenchi.

Well, I didn't post person A's argument leading to that conclusion. I only intended to identify the logical fallacy that was being committed by person B.

Also, why are you incapable of using the relevant term "land ownership" which is what Roy and I refer to? Why the need for such a blatant straw man fallacy and propaganda? It's kind of obvious, isn't it...

 

Do you believe owning land is slavery?


​

 

Fallacy is the LVT condition of mind. All girls wear panties. John wears panties. John is a girl. That is the kind of logical fallacy they believe in because the conclusion is not conditioned on the statement of fact.

 

I believe that landownership forces human beings to labor for the benefit of landowners without reciprocation, essentially turning them into de facto slaves of landowners as the practical end result. Whether that end result is reached of course depends on other factors which may alleviate the impact of landownership. There are many historical and modern examples.

Simple historical example: British landlords turning Ireland into their own private property and having all the food the Irish produced above mere subsistence paid in rent since there was no good rent free land available, which pushed the margin of production to nada. The Irish were not slaves. Yet, what was the difference? If anything, they were worse off. Their landlords had no care for them. They had no need to give them food and shelter. They just extracted rents.

 

I think that's affirming the consequent (if I remember right?). Now you just have to provide evidence of Roy and I engaging in it. I'm not just going to let you get away with the bald claim that we have done so. Provide evidence.

 

If you believe requiring someone to labor for another's benefit makes them a slave, then you believe a father makes his son a slave when he requires him to take out the trash. Every soldier, contractor, employee, and school child is also just as much a slave.

Which is to say not at all. A slave is the legal property of another person, not anyone who finds himself required to work when he'd rather not. Owning a home doesn't make your neighbor, your property.



​