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

Re: privilege or right?

Expand Messages
  • Matt Bieker
    ... Well, no, because each person s right to use of the earth is limited by the equal right of everyone else. I have a right to use the land where that towel
    Message 1 of 45 , Apr 7 12:40 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffery J. Smith" <jjs@...> wrote:
      >
      > On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:41 AM, Matt Bieker wrote:
      > > But wouldn't you agree that I don't have a share of the earth, but
      > > instead am rightfully entitled to use any of it?
      > >
      > You show up at a beach and throw your towel down on top of another's.
      > That's a rightful act? Doesn't seem like it to me.
      >

      Well, no, because each person's right to use of the earth is limited
      by the equal right of everyone else. I have a right to use the land
      where that towel is, but so does the person who put the towel there.

      But let me turn this around: if I don't want to go to the beach at
      all, does the person who has put a towel down permanently owe me
      compensation? Or does he only owe compensation to people who would
      like to use that area of the beach?


      > > A clever anti-Georgist (theoretically they exist)
      > >
      > Hah!
      >
      > > would quickly turn the earth-shares argument on us, IMO.
      > >
      >
      > People do. OTOH, it's that feature that draws many (this feature got
      > a carbon tax passed in BC and NZ).
      >

      Be careful, though. A carbon tax bears mainly on a tiny minority that
      is generally unpopular.

      > For me, sharing what's of value
      > that labor didn't make is the essence, that and mutual compensation.
      >

      But labor DID make the value (as George pointed out, labor ultimately
      creates all value). It's a value that represents the synergistic
      efforts of society as a whole. But not everyone contributes to these
      efforts; in fact, some work to decrease the level of synergy. Though
      these individuals have no claim whatever to the value produced by
      others who do contribute to synergistic efforts, they still have an
      equal right to use the earth.
    • Harry Pollard
      People buy a gold mine for the ore? ****************************** Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91043 Tel: 818 352-4141
      Message 45 of 45 , May 14, 2009
      • 0 Attachment

        People buy a gold mine for the ore?

         

        ******************************

        Henry George School of Los Angeles

        Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91043

        Tel: 818 352-4141

        ******************************

         

        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roy Langston
        Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 12:06 PM
        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [LandCafe] Re:Overpopulation and Wages Fund

         





        Harry Pollard wrote:

        >So, now you agree that someone using “intrinsic”
        >may not be an ignoramus as these distinguished
        >economists both used it.

        Uh, they used it in an entirely different
        context. It's using a word in an inappropriate
        context that makes one seem an ignoramus. For
        example, if someone said, "This pond has an
        intrinsic frog population of 36," that would make
        them seem a biological ignoramus.

        >The writers used it to describe the actual value
        >of the "bullion" within the coin, I used it to
        >describe the actual value of the bullion within
        >the mine.

        You reversed the quotation marks inappropriately,
        because there actually is bullion in a gold coin,
        but not in a gold mine. There is only ore in the
        mine, not bullion. So your sentence should have read,
        "The writers used it to describe the actual value
        of the bullion within the coin, I used it to
        describe the actual value of the 'bullion' within
        the mine," thus making it clear that you were
        not using the word the way they were using it.

        >Fewer ad hominems and more attention to
        >discovery would be appreciated.

        Cast out first the beam that is in thine own
        eye, Harry.

        Harry also wrote:

        [I wrote]

        >“There is a lot of confused nonsense about jobs
        >and job creation. While it is true that poverty
        >and destitution are rarely the result of
        >overpopulation and usually the result of unjust
        >land tenure arrangements, claiming miracles for
        >rent recovery will not increase our credibility.
        >
        >So you agree? Didn’t claim any miracles.

        George claimed rent recovery was "the solution"
        to poverty. But it can't solve poverty caused by
        the other factors I identified: Easter Island-style
        overshoot; adherence to traditional ways that can
        no longer support the population; endemic disease
        or animal pests; climate change; depredations by
        thieves or corrupt governments; etc.

        >You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

        In logic, it is important to ensure that every
        premise is true, as any false premise, no matter
        how minor or how very slightly false it may seem,
        can lead to radically false conclusions.

        >What did Henry George get wrong?

        The nature of money and interest; the moral basis
        and economic effects of patents and copyrights;
        the appropriate remedy for poverty caused by
        systematic uncompensated violation of people's
        land-use rights; etc.

        Harry also wrote:

        >I suppose being a gold-bug is rather better
        >than being a fiat-fanatic.
        >
        >I think a money backed by a commodity is
        >infinitely better than a money backed by (as Ed
        >Dodson put it) 'nothing is particular'.

        Fiat money is not backed by nothing in particular.
        It is backed by government's power to tax and to
        order money payments in settlement of debts.

        >The present fiat-fraud is a permanent invisible
        >tax on our production.

        The current system is debt money, not fiat money,
        and the permanent invisible "tax" goes to private
        banks, their officers and owners, not to
        government, and thus is not a tax at all but a
        rent -- i.e., a return to privilege.

        -- Roy Langston

        __________________________________________________________
        Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

        http://www.flickr.com/gift/

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