Re: privilege or right?
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffery J. Smith" <jjs@...> wrote:
>Well, no, because each person's right to use of the earth is limited
> 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.
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)Be careful, though. A carbon tax bears mainly on a tiny minority that
> > 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).
is generally unpopular.
> For me, sharing what's of valueBut labor DID make the value (as George pointed out, labor ultimately
> that labor didn't make is the essence, that and mutual compensation.
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.
People buy a gold mine for the ore?
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91043
Tel: 818 352-4141
Harry Pollard wrote:
>So, now you agree that someone using “intrinsic”Uh, they used it in an entirely different
>may not be an ignoramus as these distinguished
>economists both used it.
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 valueYou reversed the quotation marks inappropriately,
>of the "bullion" within the coin, I used it to
>describe the actual value of the bullion within
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 toCast out first the beam that is in thine own
>discovery would be appreciated.
Harry also wrote:
>“There is a lot of confused nonsense about jobsGeorge claimed rent recovery was "the solution"
>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.
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 betterFiat money is not backed by nothing in particular.
>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'.
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 invisibleThe current system is debt money, not fiat money,
>tax on our production.
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!