RE: [LandCafe] Re: Detroit Land Grab
Worried by all this existential despair over American political wasteland.You're not going to start writing Anglo-Catholic poetry are you ? (A better model might be the ash dump in The Great Gatsby; the one with the spectacles.The neo Gatsby
could be wandering over this looking for Daisy, his Frisbee, which has been lost by Oliver Hardy.)
Seriously, something will always turn up, as Micawber said.Another of the tribe of lost causes I support is Resale Price Maintenance ( I gave this a run-out on landcafe once and got shot up by Dan Sullivan,who with heavy-handed humour, kept calling it Revolutions per Minute).However, after years of dead silences every time I mentioned it ,the American Supreme Court re-legalised it in the case of Leegin Creative Leather vs PSKS dba Kays Kloset (2007) a case so significant,that it was n't even mentioned anywhere in the UK and in not much of the USA I'll be bound.
Another lost cause is bank nationalisation. I was engaged ,via his blog, in trying to wind up John Redwood, the rather distinguished keeper of some kind of weird Tory flame or other, when the Credit Crunch was getting out of hand,by saying :nationalise the banks.Within a week the Labour Government had nationalised RBS/Nat West,so I was able to congratulate Redwood on the success of his blog-site in changing government policy. He was n't very pleased.
The Liberals in the British coalition government have now started talking about an emergency Wealth Tax in the present crisis .Since nobody knows what this means ,the BBC News at 6 o'clock put up a caption with the two most likely measures: 1) Inheritance Tax 2)Land Value Tax with the voice-over explaining that this taxed not buildings but the land underneath. It is now possible for the usual LVT suspects to get letters printed in the papers ( well, the Guardian anyway).
No doubt this is all very "boats against the current being pushed ceaselessly into the past" but you never know with politics.Things do change in an utterly unpredictable way ,(says he brightly, not really convincing himself.)
Perhaps Lincoln and Schalkenbach (? so prominent I can't remember how to spell it) should go to the Supreme Court if the legal obstacles to LVT are such a problem in the US.
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 18:56:22 +0000
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Detroit Land GrabOK OK, I'll send him an email.
I just not that it doesn't in the least follow from the fact that "if those who see the cat don't at least try to point it out to those who don't, when they are given an explicit opportunity to do so" that there is ALSO not a ZERO possibility even when those who see the cat utilize every opportunity to the fullest. I'm not sure you fully realize what a complete wasteland U.S. politics is in 2012.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
> > I just wanted to add that, a couple of days ago, a state rep. candidate for an open seat was going door-to-door in my neighborhood to tell us why he is better than the other Dem. candidates for this now open seat (my district is very Dem.--no Repub. would have a chance here either prior to or subsequent to the redistricting that has just occurred). For a fleeting moment I thought I might ask him about two-rate taxes, but I realized how stupid and hopeless it would be, so I whined about the state of our school administration for the 5 minutes allotted me instead.
> In that situation, I would have explored what social or political problems he was most passionate about, and then showed him why they can't be solved -- that he will be wasting his time -- unless the land problem is solved, and that solving the land problem just might solve his problem, along with a lot of others, automatically. I would never miss a chance to help someone in a position like that see the cat. Think about it: now if he is talking to someone else who mentions land rent recovery, they will be the only one, just a voice in the wilderness, a crackpot. But if there had had been TWO, he might have said, "Wait a minute, that's the second person who has mentioned this, and they both seemed more intelligent, reasonable, and better informed than 90% of the people I've talked to. I wonder what Google will come up with about land value tax..."
> > There really is ZERO chance for anything like that here. Less so than 20 years ago, when I actually devoted considerable time and trouble to the effort.
> Yes, there really is ZERO chance for anything like that... if those who see the cat don't at least try to point it out to those who don't, when they are given an explicit opportunity to do so.
> A few months ago, as part of a class I was taking, I had an opportunity to speak to the class (a dozen educated adults) for 10 minutes on any topic I wanted. I chose landowner privilege. They were totally oblivious to it, and had never heard or seen any mention of how it affects them personally. I explained the Henry George Theorem but did not mention "Progress and Poverty." However, afterwards the teacher said to me, "Didn't Henry George write 'Progress and Poverty'? Someone asked me to read it years ago, but I couldn't really understand the first chapter so I quit. You made it seem a lot more personal, like something we need to do something about." A fellow student spoke to me a few days later, and said, "You are right about us being on a treadmill, and landowners riding up on the escalator. That image makes me so angry. I never realized how they can take what I earn, without doing anything. But what can we do about it?"
> -- Roy Langston
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
> The main point of resorting to natural law pronoucements of the kind you have bellowed is that they are supposed to help us determine what the various human-made laws SHOULD say. That is, if we have a question about know how some law should be constructed with respect to, e.g., who should receive various benefits and for how long or which protections of person or property must be enforced, or whatever, natural law claims are sometimes made--just as you have confidently made them in this context. It is, thus plainly circular to respond, when asked to specify the characteristics of some claimed natural law, "You'll have to consult the local legislature and courts--they'll tell us."Which might be why I haven't done so. Citizenship self-evidently isn't a question of natural law, and I've explained why residence defined as six months + reflects the relevant natural law principles.
-- Roy Langston