- View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
>You place a lot of focus on categorizing as usual. Ofcourse I've never said anything beyond law and order is verboten. I'm actually pro a system of UHC, not because it's a right, but because it is usually a reasonably efficient way of doing what our impulses say is right, helping people as best as we can.
>I'm afraid your comments read like some Tea Party diatribe: people have nor right to health care ("It's certainly no right") and should only be treated "If you /gov can afford it"(Based on the aggregate of land values only) Any govt spending beyond law and order is verboten for having" no practical limit".<
Under the system I'm subject to, there are certain drugs I can receive free of charge, and certain drugs I can't, there are certain categories of people who get to be cared for in a care-home, and certain categories who don't. This ofcourse changes over time, according to cultural and political impulses, technological development, and in the end, budget constraints. If such services were a right, the entitlement would not change significantly over time. Any such spending may or not be positive, but it's always pragmatic. We can have a decent society with a govt. spending at 50% of GDP, and we can have a decent society with govt. spending at 20%.
>All of this is based on a very restricted view of economics where the quantity ( and velocity) of money is fixed and banks never create new funds through Fractional Reserve Banking : the only money available to the Government is to be re-cycled through the Land Tax system based on a tax base of land that possibly/hopefully never increases in value.Or the govt borrows from the money-creating private sector banks and outsources public services to big business like the American Health Insurance companies which are wonderfully public spirited and never seek to make a profit. (Irony BTW) <Whether to issue funny money or not is an issue entirely separate from some fundamental things; resources and labour is scarce, and can only be used for one thing at the same time, so if we take resources and labour from the private sector and use it in the public sector, there is less resources in the private sector. And returns go either to capital, labour or land. Maybe tweaking the monetary system can have a positive impact on the process of wealth-creation, but it doesn't significantly affect the role of monopoly in land as far as I can see.
When have I ever said that the tax-base from LVT shouldn't increase? High land-rents are a sign that locations are valuable and that people gain from using/living on that land. If scarcity and/or private externalities create high land values as a portion of the economy, we can dish more back in services or dividends to ensure people have an access to opportunities.
And when have I ever lauded the american system of health care?
>You constantly impugn me for not caring about working-people when the economic solutions I am discussing ,( from big names like Kaletsky,Steve Keen and Skidelsky ) would provide income and jobs, in ways short of the govt taking control of industries and running them in co-operation with the unions as Obama did with American Auto (though we should n't deny ourselves recourse to this State Capitalist solution or any solution that can be proved to work in the spirit of Dewey's pragmatic experimentalism ).You on the other hand never hint at any growth strategy or any policy for putting the FRB money created by the banks to public use.<No I don't. Please mention a succesfull, long-term sustainable intervention into a private industry that I can chew on. There has been a lot of focus on "industrial policy" on this side of the North Sea in the past 50 years, and no research has concluded that it has created any more jobs or wealth, on the contrary.
>Any political programme based on demonising people paying mortgages as rent-seekers and opposed to the productive class(as you do) is doomed.<There is no ONE programme, as your leftist background instinctively leads you to believe there should be. There are land-taxers who are minarchists, and there are land-taxers who would want to use revenue to pay five-a-day advisors, so stop trying to cram people into your categorized programme.
>Don't productive people pay mortgages?And bigger mortgages the more productive they are ?This kind of attitude : that people with mortgages should simultaneously pay for the value of their land via the mortgages AND the entire land value to the State which otherwise has no income, works to sabotage the LVT cause every time it is expressed.<Productive people are paying extortionate taxes *and* mortgages, if we take in the same, or less in taxes from land that we are currently taking in from taxes that destroy jobs and wealth, why aren't people better off? And why is it that you think implementing novel monetary schemes is all in a day's work, but that the current financial structure, with heavy mortgaging of land, is somehow set in stone, hence we can never do anything about existing injustices? Strange reasoning IMO, and a strange set of priorities.
- View SourceJDK,Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the "fittest" just describes those who have survived.With regard to your last sentence – Stalin got there first.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:Evolution is not really: the survival of the "fittest" It is just survival of that which survives. Evolution is a way of describing the process of how variation within a population will lead to variation eventually of species. There are plenty of genes along for the ride which are not particularly "the fittest".Yes the survival of the two apostolic lungs of Christianity (Catholics and the Eastern church) despite its massive weakness and in fact embracement of weakness of the god who becomes human and is rejected and put to death is a puzzle and crazy on its face. It drove Nietzsche crazy (well that and syphillus drove him crazy). It also drove the communists crazy too. Massive defense? How many tanks does the church have?Jdk
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
> > wrote:
> > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
> > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
> > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
> > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
> Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
> It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
> reason I won't hide my background.
> This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
> charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
> mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
> Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
*shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.
Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.
Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.
One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.