Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LandCafe] Re: From Today's Boston Globe

Expand Messages
  • dwspain8
    ... said nothing about UIE compensation. ... of the millions of small landholders whose principal assets he proposed to remove without compensation, and gained
    Message 1 of 199 , Feb 28, 2013
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "David Spain" <dspain@...> wrote:

      >> --- In <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "David Spain" wrote: HG
      said nothing about UIE compensation.
      >> And that's likely a major reason he failed. Without the UIE, he couldn't secure the allegiance
      of the millions of small landholders whose principal assets he proposed to remove without
      compensation, and gained only lukewarm support from the landless, who correctly perceived that
      under George's proposed Single Tax, they would still be paying land rent just to exist and have an
      opportunity to sustain themselves. He only proposed to remove the advantage of those privileged to
      own land, not to remove the disadvantage of those consequently deprived of land.
      >> ===== What matters is the principle, not the preferences of the ignorant & selfish short-term
      plebs. Neither we nor HG should pander to the masses. The spheres of intelligence & spirit are not
      democracies and they will prevail in the end.
      > We need to discover the true principles concerning land tenure and find ways to make them
      attractive to the "ignorant and selfish short-term plebs." Maintaining unshakable faith that
      Henry George was right about everything is not the way to do that.
      >> I've not concluded you are wrong on the principle, just that at present you are not clearly
      > I'll breathlessly await your authoritative determination of the matter...

      >> > Why do we need this UIE complication
      >> > and all the argument about its quantification & allocation?
      >> To secure liberty and justice for all -- and political marketability for LVT. ==== To secure
      jobs for bureaucrats more likely,
      > That's a silly and dishonest claim without factual or logical support.
      === Come off it, all these applications for UIE, collections of data, assessments of entitlement &
      quantum, distribution of payments .. another headache

      >> and no way principle should be sacrificed to politics.
      > It is precisely true principle that will win politically.
      ===== Oh ho ho. Since when? SR/LVT has never got much of a leg up, and that is -not- because it
      lacks a UIE, it is because plebs & nobs alike want to rip off the Earth

      >> > The given reason is a libertarian one - that the State has now set itself
      >> up as landlord and is demanding SR/LVT from all siteholders.
      >> No, it isn't. The deprivation of liberty inherent in exclusive landholding occurs even if there
      is no state at all. It's just the state's job to _rectify_ that injustice and restore the equal
      individual rights of all to life and liberty.
      ==== I can accept that. The question is, whether the HG template alone does the job.
      > I've already proved it doesn't.
      ==== Oh, I must have missed that proof in all the mish-mash. Please re-present it.

      >> > However, assuming
      >> > the State we are talking about is democratic & benevolent, who is it that is not benefitting
      >> from the process?
      >> All who are deprived of their liberty to use land and cannot afford to buy it back. ==== Aren't
      these nameless folk, for whom your heart bleeds,
      > Gratuitous ad hominem garbage.
      >> only the ones
      >> who refuse to work with hand or brain and so choose this deprivation?
      > No. They are everyone who is forcibly deprived of access to what nature provided for free.
      Removal of people's rights to liberty is what forces them to offer their labor to landholders,
      competing each other's wages down. The enclosures in Britain didn't create massive poverty
      because the landowners weren't paying land rent to the public treasury. They created massive
      poverty by forcibly depriving people of access to economic opportunity unless they competed each
      other's wages down to get it.

      == Well, that's just it. No-one has been deprived at all. Everyone can bid for own desired lot, or
      one akin to it. True, they have to bid (not get it free), but we no longer live in Garden of Eden.
      There is competition for sites. So all folk have to get with the agenda, not pine after Paradise.
      The enclosures in Britain would not have happened had the land-seizers been obliged to pay SR/LVT
      to a democratic government. The workers would have stayed home or relocated to marginal lands.
      >> There
      >> can be a sufficient welfare safety net for those who cannot do so.
      > That is not only wasteful and unjust, but also doesn't address the problem that exclusive land
      tenure without a UIE (or second best, an equivalent CD) rigs the labor market in favor of
      employers by forcing workers to compete each other's wages down in order to obtain access to
      economic opportunity.
      ==== I don't accept that some ultimate welfare safety net is wasteful & unjust. It is probably
      very fair & efficient. However, no doubt it should be avoided, by allowing to bear upon all people
      life's full pressure to work & produce. The SR/LVT system does this because workers can relocate
      to marginal lands, leaving valuable siteholders bereft of labour hence in danger of losing their
      sites unless they increase wages.

      >> > The roads, parks, museums, civil order &
      >> > national defence, welfare net etc. are there, free for all.
      >> No, they aren't. To get the advantage of them, you have to pay LVT for use of a suitable
      >> === Not at all, they are there & free to use.
      > No, they are not, don't be ridiculous. You cannot obtain the advantages they offer without
      paying for a suitable location from which to do so. You typically cannot sleep in public parks.
      You cannot maintain employability while wandering dirty and homeless through the cities and
      countryside eating out of garbage bins. Claiming that a homeless vagabond is getting anything
      remotely close to equal benefit from civil society, government services and infrastructure, the
      opportunities and amenities in the community, and the resources nature provides is absurd,
      grotesque, and dishonest.
      ==== The lifestyle of your "dirty vagabond" is self-chosen. Had ever he wanted, he could have
      developed & applied the skills to work & produce with hand or brain and so bid for an exclusive
      site. Why should our hearts bleed for him as you suggest? Probably he would not want that himself.
      Anyway, I've lived homeless in treehouses as a hippie in the rainforest or with little cash, out
      of an old car, eating from wild fruit trees, showering or swimming in public amenities and
      spending my days pottering in libraries & museums, playing the pipes with chicks down at the creek
      ... no probs ... better than being a barrister

      >> So are the beaches & bush, national parks & rivers . Any swagman or beachcomber can just walk
      > From where? And how does your swagman get the full benefit of civil order while having no more
      possessions than he can comfortably wheel around in an old shopping cart? How does he feed
      himself on welfare without secure access to a kitchen with a stove, a fridge, and cupboards?
      === This is the lifestyle he has chosen, for crissake, and who wouldn't with all the crap you get
      in main street? He just walks in off the public road, where & whence he enjoys all the benefits of
      public order he wishes to access.

      >> > Maybe there are some pure libertarians who eschew any benefit from the State - beachcombers
      iving in humpies, swagmen who avoid walking the roads humping their bluey, nomads in the desert.
      But is the State really interfering with their "entitlement to a fair share of land"?
      >> No one here has suggested an "entitlement to a fair share of land," so why would you put that
      expression in quotation marks? What we have said is that the state secures the exclusive tenure of
      landholders, at the expense of those who are consequently forcibly deprived of their natural
      liberty to use the land.
      >>> === No-one under SR/LVT is forcibly deprived of liberty to use land, at least in the
      general sense.

      > That's just clearly false. They are indisputably deprived of the liberty to use all the land
      held under exclusive tenure.
      === Well, of course. This is not Garden of Eden. If you want Garden of Eden, you should go to
      Tahiti ... no, sorry, that taken, try Pitcairn Island ... no, sorry, thats taken ... maybe up in
      the mountains of Equador or Paraguay ... This is why we need SR/LVT to regulate competition for
      exclusive tenure. It is not a valid objection to SR/LVT that it fails to grant exclusive
      possession to individuals who (a) want it handed free on a platter and (b) don't want to work with
      hand or brain and lodge bids. Such an objection fails to appreciate the population v resource
      pressures that necessitate SR/LVT in the first place.

      >> Prior occupation (by a site rental payer) might exclude from a specific lot, but there are many
      other lots.
      > Yes, and there is lots of land on the moon, too. Having liberty only to use the land no one
      else wants to use is not liberty, sorry.
      === The remedy is, to bid higher for lots (or equivalent lots) the bidder desires

      >> anyone can bid.
      > "Any slave who is dissatisfied with his lot can just buy his right to liberty from his owner.
      Problem solved!"
      === Not at all. No-one is a slave. Anyone can go to marginal land, pay a pittance in SR/LVT, build
      a shack, grow own veges and wash down at the creek

      >> If an individual is unwilling to bid for exclusive occupation, even at the margin, then he only
      has himself to blame for holding none.
      > Observe the kind of stupid, dishonest and evil garbage I have often seen from lying anti-geoist
      filth in Internet discussions: "If an individual is unwilling to buy land for himself, even at the
      margin, then he only has himself to blame for owning none."
      == Uh? Not asserting ad hominem garbage are you?

      >> But even such a one has a vast & free access to unenclosed public land of many kinds & qualities
      > All of them bad.
      >> > Not at all - the State is letting
      >> > them use all the (public) land they please without harassment or levy,
      >> But forcibly depriving them of the liberty to use the privately held land, which is almost
      certain to be almost all of the most advantageous land.
      == See response above. There is a constant resupply of "advantageous" land as populations age,
      folk die or get tired ... All your poor little mite has to do is work & bid.

      > See comprehensive and conclusive demolition of response above.
      >> > and
      >> > if they wish to privately hold a site they can do so same as anyone else.
      >> "If they wish to privately own a license to steal, they can buy one same as anyone else."
      Unjust conditions being the same for everyone does not make them just.
      > You need to read the above again, slowly, several times, until you understand it.
      === I got lost in this one

      >> > Funnily, Roy seems to want to allocate UIE to people who have physical residential addresses,
      but it seems to me that it is only people without these who might be entitled to it.
      >> _They_ are the only ones entitled to something only _they_ have no use for? Don't _think_
      >> === Well, you are the one who raised this libertarian ogre
      > Would that be the "libertarian ogre" called "liberty, justice and truth"?
      === No, it would be a straw man argument raised by a scramble-brain interventionist do-gooding
      third party proclaiming that a dude who didn't want X and had avoided ever getting X had been
      ripped off from having X

      >> > And their entitlement would not be
      >> > properly termed an exemption, because they eschew holding land in the first place, so much as
      >> a moral compensatory entitlement.
      >> Then just what would they be getting through this "moral compensatory entitlement"?
      === Cash
      > Ah. Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...
      === Yay!

      > -- Roy Langston
      ==== David Spain
    • walto
      ... Right. Both almost surely true. ... And the truths find there way in there too! W
      Message 199 of 199 , Mar 5, 2013
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > So you are saying that the existence of the Flat Earth Society DOES make the spheroidal shape of the earth disputable?
        > >
        > > My degree of confidence is roughly the same as that in my above judgment regarding your personality. Put it this way: is it possible I'm wrong about either the shape of the earth or your arrogance? Sure, I could be wrong about pretty much every proposition that seems obvious to me--that is the nature of human fallibility. But it's really, really doubtful in both cases.
        > So you claim the earth's spheroidal shape is not only disputable, but about as disputable as your opinion of my personality?

        Right. Both almost surely true.

        > "A sick man dreams nothing so dreadful that some philosopher isn't saying it." -- Marcus Terentius Varro
        > -- Roy Langston

        And the truths find there way in there too!

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.