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

Re: Georgists in Zombieland, pt. 2

Expand Messages
  • Nathan Byrd
    ... Not sure what relevance this has. We re talking about the existence of rights, not whether anyone s actually taken them seriously or upheld them
    Message 1 of 140 , Nov 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      > I have never had to pay any economic rent to anyone else for use of any atoms...have you?>

      Not sure what relevance this has. We're talking about the existence of rights, not whether anyone's actually taken them seriously or upheld them consistently.

      The fact that you've been disadvantaging people your whole life by your exclusive use of atoms, keeping everyone else from using them, is still true, even if no one's confronted you for your crimes yet.

      > They are free to use as everyone has left "enough and as good" for me to use.>

      Well, that would be nice, but it's not the case sadly. There are some extremely rare and valuable atoms that I have no access to, and I have not been compensated for that loss at all.

      I heard on the news recently that some unknown Picassos were recently uncovered. It's amazing, the injustice of it all. I went down to claim my equal access to them, and I told them that there were not enough or as good Picassos available to me, and therefore, let me have one in my home or pay me for the loss of value I've sustained. No one would take me seriously, though. I don't understand how they can justify what they're doing. Such blatant theft, and they don't even bother to apologize or in any way acknowledge what they've done to me, and you, and everyone else being disadvantaged here.

      I wrote a similar letter to the gold exchange explaining how very little gold there is for my own use, and that it was clear exploiters have been denying me access to these rare atoms without even hinting at the compensation they'll be sending me forthwith. I've yet to receive a reply.

      Nathan
    • Dan
      But all labor is owned and is unequally distributed. Should those who have more labor be made to pay the rest of us? Regards, Dan From: jeo1@frontier.com
      Message 140 of 140 , Dec 9, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        But all labor is owned and is unequally distributed. Should those who have more labor be made to pay the rest of us?
         
        Regards,
         
        Dan

        From: "jeo1@..." <jeo1@...>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 3:14:02 PM
        Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] The Notorious B.I.G\Are landowners equivalent to a state?
         

        All land is not owned.

        But rent is not the same as taxes. The state taxes all income, purchases etc. Rent is paid only in exchange for use of the property, it is voluntary and market based.

        I need not pay rent unless I choose to and then I am getting something in exchange. I can pay rent to no one, or to a different property owner if I choose. With the state I have none of these options and I get nothing in return for payment of all the taxes, instead I get the bad things the state does.

        It is not a good analogy.

        From: "Bill" <erm4you@...>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2010 1:13:40 PM
        Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: The Notorious B.I.G.

        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com , jeo1@... wrote:
        >
        > From: "Bill" <erm4you@...>
        > To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 2:59:11 PM
        > Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: The Notorious B.I.G.
        >
        > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com , Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@> wrote:
        >
        > > At 08:39 PM 12/6/2010 +0000, you wrote:
        > > >I define a state (as a "Nockian anarchist") as specifically empowered via privilege granting to allow the landowning class to occupy and exclude WITHOUT having to share the economic rent.
        > >
        > >
        > > oh by the way, even the minimal libertarian state is a STATE.
        > >
        > > There's no such thing as a PRO STATE 'nockian ANARCHIST'.
        > >
        >
        > and in your anarchy where all lands are privately held -- from the POV of the right to self-ownership -- what is the difference to the landless between "the state" and a landowner?
        >
        > bg
        >
        >
        > REPLY: Are the "landless" just those who for the moment do not own land? Or are you saying it is a permanent class? If so, why? Maybe the "landless" rent their home, travel, or have their resources, investments and wealth in other things beside land. Maybe they do not work, or have squandered their resources.
        >
        > In your geoist view this mythical "landless" group are all permanent victims of the evil landowners? This is a very simplistic view and not supported by reality.
        >
        > No, someone else owning some land somewhere in the world is not equivalent to a state. A state can tax me, draft me, imprison me, regulate me, steal from me, kill me in war etc none of which a landowner can do. The only thing a landowner can do is prevent me from trespassing on his or her land. A state or even "legitimate local governing agency" has reach and power over me far more than that.
        >
        >

        I was asking about a situation where all land was owned which means you have to pay a landowner to rent access to land somewhere.

        so with regards to a state being able to "tax me" - what is the difference?

        bg


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