RE: [LandCafe] Re: Geoist motto ? Why "Geoist"?
Looks good to me.
I like "Natural Public Revenue" .... maybe we're NaPpeRs or NaPuRe lovers, or simply Revenuers.
"Natural Public Revenue" might ring well with those in the US who are used to hearing "national public radio" and therefore rather poorly with those whose taste runs to Fox News.
"NPR" would extend over land and natural resources and all the other sources of revenue.
"Public" gets us away from "socialize."
On 5/31/2010 2:45 PM, roy_langston1 wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...>
> We seem to be sleepwalking into describing ourselves as
Some of us are sick of being dismissed as the Henry
George Fan Club. Marxism did not exist before Marx, and
would likely never have existed without him, so it is
appropriate to call it "Marxism." By contrast, land rent
recovery existed before Henry George, and would definitely
exist even if he never had, so it is NOT appropriate to
call it "Georgism."
> It is an ugly neologism,that does n't explain itself at
> first sight (which is pretty vital)
If you (or anyone here) can think of a more attractive,
accurate and self-explanatory term, please let us know
what it is.
> and on first hearing sounds "New Age",than which
> nothing is more dated and soppy.
I don't get that feeling, but what do others here think?
> I cannot see why we can't just call ourselves land
> taxers and then indicate shades of allegiance by
> prefixed political inclinations as in GB: Socialist
> land taxer (e.g. Labour Land Campaign/ not much doubt
> what that's about) ;Liberal land taxers (in ALTER);
> UKIP land taxers (about two though highly vocal) and
> the very rare Conservative land taxer (not plural).
Maybe that's the way to go. But IMO it preserves a
destructive political fragmentation that we should be
seeking any possible means to overcome.
> If you want to be logical (always leads to arguments)
> you would have to use the umbrella-term Socialism .
Socialism already has a definition, and it's not what
we (or at least I) propose.
> We all mean to socialise the profits of the land
> market, take them into public ownership and
> redistribute them. Can't see the problem .
Socialism proposes to socialize the privately created
value of capital, too. I have seen LVT described as
"land socialism," and I can't say it sounded very
appealing, or even accurate, as it seems to imply
socialization of land use, not just land rent.
-- Roy Langston
On Jun 19, 2010, at 1:34 PM, Harry Pollard wrote:
I rather disagreed, but do agree it was propaganda wrapped in entertainment.
Harry, we ought to try it!
SMITH, Jeffery J.
President, Forum on Geonomics
Land Rights course: www.course.earthrights.net
Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve.