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

RE: [LandCafe] Re: liberty

Expand Messages
  • Harry Pollard
    Bernard, Libertarians in their various manifestations simply want the elimination of the State, or a large part of it. Demonizing them for this perfectly
    Message 1 of 137 , Jun 19, 2010
    • 0 Attachment



      Libertarians in their various manifestations simply want the elimination of the State, or a large part of it. Demonizing them for this perfectly reasonable philosophy is a little ridiculous, though some of them are just as likely to demonize those who appear to enjoy the present often corrupt, occasionally criminal, modern State.


      Many years ago, I was walking along Yonge St. in Toronto with two ladies. One was Margaret Bateman, former Director of the Henry George School in New York, the other was Strethel Walton, then current Director of the Henry George School of Montreal. 


      The ladies were agog with a book they had just read - Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. They liked it. This interested me enough that I, in due time, read it. I found it was full of interesting ideas, but I skipped the long John Galt speech.


      Later, I read some of her Objectivist Newsletters. They showed a good mind and interesting concepts.


      Over the years, I’ve had a lot of fun debating Objectivists. They are often pretty good people.


      The “non-initiation of force” is at the heart of many libertarian philosophies. It’s a perfectly valid “don’t harm anyone” philosophy. However, if someone initiates force against you, you have every right to protect yourself, if necessary with force.


      Just don’t start it.


      Doesn’t that make sense?




      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bernard Rooney
      Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:32 PM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: liberty




      > Posted by: "mattbieker" agrarian.justice@...   mattbieker
      > Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:30 am (PDT)
      > IME online (and we're talking LOTS of experience here; 10+ years), just
      > about everyone who doesn't self-identify as a libertarian hates
      > libertarians' guts. And I really mean hate (it's fairly well-earned too,
      > because libertarian types on these board have a tendency to be both stupid
      > and ignorant). On many boards, there's a smallish clique of libertarian
      > types who are simply regarded as nuts by the rest of the board. Even coming
      > across as a libertarian endangers you as being lumped in with the rest of
      > the libertarians and summarily ignored and derided.
      > Geoists should not hitch to the libertarian movement. Trust me on that one.

      Couldn't agree more with this. "Libertarianism" is a dumb ass
      philosophy held by some of the dumbest people on the planet. People
      who think Ayn Rand is a philosopher and not a psychopath. People who
      think "non-initiation of force" is some sort of profound concept
      instead of a feeble-minded idiocy.

      I'm pretty sure libertarianism is a deliberate fraud as well.
      Classical liberalism has a certain inevitable logical trajectory,
      ending in an explicit declaration of rights to land. But this is too
      radical. Libertarianism's one identifying or distinguishing feature is
      the complete and systematic exclusion of land rights. There's no
      "unearned increment" or "as much and as good for others" here. Oh no.
      Not a bit of it. Nothing remotely like it. Not by chance neither.

      It's calculated and reactionary, rather obviously so. It's designed to
      prevent people from understanding either socialism or georgism, and to
      wed them to the political right. In this it works rather well with
      some of our youth, partly because it's promoted by the think tank
      industry, partly because people dont know much anyway.

      As a philosophy it is empty, but I do find it somewhat interesting as
      a sociological and ideological phenomenon, a bit like Scientology.
      What's the structure of the concepts that it's able to ensnare and
      entrap? What kind of people fall for this? I suspect it's got
      something to do with right-wing authoritarianism and the bowldlerized
      Nietzscheanism and relentless, dogmatic self-assertion of Rand, a true
      witch described by Chomsky only recently as one of the most evil
      persons of the last century.

    • roy_langston1
      ... Very good, Harry. But LAND is, and LAND is what I SAID nature provided, NOT RENT. Look up about seven lines. Yep. There it is: the land nature
      Message 137 of 137 , Jul 11, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

        > You said in reply to my point:
        > > HP: I suggest you collect the full Rent without any
        > > deduction to handle this.
        > But of course, that doesn't "handle" it. Having to pay
        > rent in order to use the land nature provided is a
        > violation of the right to liberty whether the payment
        > is made to a private landowner or a public office.
        > Rent isn't provided by nature.

        Very good, Harry. But LAND is, and LAND is what I SAID
        nature provided, NOT RENT. Look up about seven lines.
        Yep. There it is: "the land nature provided," not "the
        rent nature provided." I guess you just got a little
        confused about what I wrote in plain English. Again.

        > It's provided by people. If you don't pay them back
        > you are stealing from them

        Pay them back what? Stealing what? You can only steal
        what someone would otherwise have, and no one would
        otherwise have the rent because they would have to
        violate others' rights to use the land in order to get

        > - just as a private landholder does - though it's
        > legal stealing.

        Exercising one's natural liberty to use the land nature
        put there is not stealing. Period. Forcibly stopping
        OTHERS from using it without making just compensation IS
        stealing. Therefore, the stealing is done by forcibly
        depriving people of their liberty to use land without
        making just compensation. That is what society does if
        it requires the full rent to be paid for use of all
        supermarginal land, and does not extend an equal
        universal exemption or issue an equivalent per capita
        cash dividend: those who don't pay the rent are simply
        deprived of their rights to liberty.

        > How people can gain a "right to liberty" by paying
        > only part of the Rent is beyond me and probably
        > beyond everyone else.

        Oh? Is it really beyond you how being at liberty to use a
        modest equal share of land for free, and paying only for
        the amount used in excess of their equal free shares,
        restores people's rights to liberty -- liberty they would
        not have if they had to pay the full rent, whether to the
        community or to a private landowner? Well, it is not
        beyond me, and it does not appear to be beyond Walter,
        Matt, Peter, Joshua and a number of others, either.

        > For the majority of people, seems to me their
        > "exemption" will pay some or all of their house Rent.

        It will certainly pay some or all of the rent of the
        land under EVERYONE'S dwellings, as that is its
        explicit, intended purpose.

        > How that gives them a "right to liberty" is also
        > beyond me (and probably everyone else).

        Having to pay to exercise your natural liberty to use land
        is not the same as actually having the liberty to use land,
        any more than a slave having to purchase his liberty from
        his owner is the same as his actually having his liberty.
        Being at liberty without having to pay someone else if you
        want to exercise it is actually HAVING a right to liberty.

        > You seem to think that the "exemption will make LVT more
        > popular. Can't see that either.

        Can you see that the universal individual income tax
        exemption has made income tax, well, less unpopular than
        it would otherwise be?

        > "We are going to tax you $1,000 on your land, but we'll
        > give you back a $200 exemption."

        Better than taxing me $1000 in order to give me back $200
        cash and give every deadbeat $200 cash to blow on drugs.

        > "Wow! That's great. I will really like to keep $200 of
        > my money. Why don't you tax me $2,000 so I'll get to
        > keep $400?"

        Better than taxing me $2000 in order to give me back $400
        cash and give every deadbeat $400 cash to blow on drugs.

        > Yet, we'll have to keep files of the exemptions of 60
        > million people in the UK (300 million in the US) and
        > record how they use (or don't use) their exemptions.

        Do you really imagine that such files are required to
        administer the universal individual income tax exemption?

        > Just forget it.

        Just try to trim your responses.

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