--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
, dspain@... wrote:
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "David Spain" <dspain@> wrote:
> >> --- In <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "David Spain" wrote:
> >> > 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
The problems it solves are much bigger headaches.
> >> and no way principle should be sacrificed to politics.
> > It is precisely true principle that will win politically.
> ===== Oh ho ho. Since when?
Since it has been tried.
> 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
No. Only a tiny minority even understand the situation well enough to think in such terms. Most just see an opportunity to get something for nothing, see others getting something for nothing, and hope they can take advantage of it, too. Not one working person in 1000 understands how they are being ripped off to provide something for nothing to the privileged.
> >> 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.
You didn't miss it. You DISmissed 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.
That's just self-evidently and indisputably false.
> Everyone can bid for own desired lot, or one akin to it.
"Whah, they ain't slaves! They kin buy their freedom from their owners any ol' tahm!"
There is a difference between being "at liberty" to buy your right to liberty and actually having a right to liberty.
> True, they have to bid (not get it free),
Rights are something people have to get for free to get them at all.
> but we no longer live in Garden of Eden.
More accurately, we no longer have our rights to liberty.
> There is competition for sites. So all folk have to get with the agenda, not pine after Paradise.
Hehe. And just whose "agenda" might that be, hmmmm?
> The enclosures in Britain would not have happened had the land-seizers been obliged to pay SR/LVT to a democratic government.
Claim lacking any factual or logical support. LVT IMPLIES enclosure.
> 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.
When has that ever happened?
> However, no doubt it should be avoided, by allowing to bear upon all people life's full pressure to work & produce.
Life's? Or landholders'?
> 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.
Wages are set by the productivity of labor on marginal land. Siteholders will only have bid for their sites confident they can make money while paying market 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.
Garbage. It is simply what he has been relegated to.
> 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.
That's just the same evil, dishonest, "blame the victim" garbage I see all the time from anti-geoist filth: "Get a job, save some money, and buy some land of your own. Problem solved!"
> Why should our hearts bleed for him as you suggest?
Why do you feel such an intense, almost physical need to make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written?
> Probably he would not want that himself.
Nice of you to speak up for him...
> 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, because you chose that lifestyle and found it congenial, no one who has been forced into it against their will has any legitimate grievance?
> >> So are the beaches & bush, national parks & rivers . Any swagman or beachcomber can just walk in.
> > 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?
That's merely your erroneous assumption.
> He just walks in off the public road, where & whence he enjoys all the benefits of public order he wishes to access.
That's just a patently absurd and dishonest mischaracterization of homelessness.
> >> > 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 indisputably false. The whole problem with landowning is precisely that it removes people's liberty to access economic opportunity. That's what makes rent possible in the first place.
> > 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.
Strawman. More relevantly, it's also not a country where people have a right to liberty.
> If you want Garden of Eden,
Enough of the stupid strawmen. I want my right to liberty.
> 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 ...
Whence exclusive land tenure has already relegated a lot of unfortunate Ecuadorans and Paraguayans who would rather be at liberty to use some of the good land...
> This is why we need SR/LVT to regulate competition for
> exclusive tenure.
Private landowning already does that just fine. Remember? "If you want to use some of the good land, get a job, save some money, and buy it."
> 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.
True. It is also not an objection I have made. It's just another stupid and dishonest strawman you have made up.
> Such an objection fails to appreciate the population v resource
> pressures that necessitate SR/LVT in the first place.
Yes, well, maybe at some point you will find a willingness to address the objections I have actually made, and not just your own silly strawmen.
> >> 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
That is not a remedy, any more than the option a slave has to purchase his liberty from his owner is a remedy for slavery.
"Why, I am not abrogating your rights, Uncle Tom! You are perfectly at liberty to buy your liberty from me at any time!"
> >> 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.
The main difference between owning land and owning a slave is that when you own a slave, you remove all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you remove one of all persons' rights. The equivalence of landlessness and slavery is demonstrated by the slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY where landowning is well established, but government does not intercede massively on behalf of the landless through minimum wages, welfare, public education, health care and pensions, union monopoly laws, etc. to rescue them from its inevitable economic effects. It was likewise demonstrated in the USA following "emancipation" of the slaves:
"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: "Mas George, you say you sot us free; but 'fore God, I'm wus 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, 1885, reprinted in "Social Problems" by Henry George
> Anyone can go to marginal land, pay a pittance in SR/LVT, build
> a shack, grow own veges and wash down at the creek
No, they cannot. And being "at liberty" to choose permanent poverty in exile from the community is not liberty. Such claims are just grotesque, dishonest, and disgraceful.
> >> 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?
No. Not evading the logical identity between your "arguments" and those of evil, lying, anti-geoist filth, 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.
See comprehensive and conclusive demolition of response above.
> There is a constant resupply of "advantageous" land as populations age, folk die or get tired ...
But not as constant as the resupply of rationalizations for forcing down working people's wages by forcibly depriving them of their liberty to access economic opportunity unless they bid down each other's wages to get it.
> All your poor little mite has to do is work & bid.
I.e., bid down the wages for his own and everyone else's work in order to obtain access to economic opportunity.
The human right to liberty is something people are supposed to have without working, bidding and paying for it. Hello?
> > 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
Like I said: reread it, slowly, several times, until you understand it.
> >> > 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
Outrageous. By what right do you presume to speak for him, and for all the landless, and claim they "didn't want" stable homes of their own and "avoided" ever getting them, just because they couldn't or at least didn't work hard enough or productively enough or pinch their pennies enough to satisfy your criteria of worthiness to participate in the community?
Your rationalizations for consigning others to permanent poverty in effective exile are outrageous, dishonest, and disgraceful.
-- Roy Langston