- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Of course it was, especially to the nonsense you were spewing.
Of course it was, especially to the nonsense you were spewing.What a brilliant, well thought-out, and intelligent rebuttal.
:roll:
Taking the mirror down will help.
Regardless of your absurd comments, the ideas are still absurd and will never be implemented because they are.
Ownership doesn't presuppose your creation, it presupposes creation in general. You don't have to create everything you own for you to own it. It can be created by someone else and then traded or bought. That is the legitimate transfer of property. If I plant an apple tree, and then trade you some of my apples for your oranges, that is the legitimate transfer of property.
The same thing cannot be done with land. Land was always here and it is commonly owned by everyone. No one individual has a right to land just because they say they do.
I am not against the possession and homesteading of land, however it is important that we establish it is not a legitimate form of property.
What a juvenile response.How old are you?
Much success? iLOLThey have been implemented in several places, and with much success.
Your notions of property is not rational.Now, discuss rationally or stop quoting me.
If I put my labor towards growing the tree would you agree it is then my property? If you do, what makes land different? If I grow an orchard to make my living on and a house to live in who is to say that is not my property? Who is to say that the land it sits on is not property? Or will you say that I own the house and the orchard, but I do not own the land in which I labored towards to get the products in which you say I own?
So in other words, you do not support private property.
The whole line of reasoning makes no sense at all.
I agree with you that possession of land is not a legitimate form of property, however I do have a question about this "fee" you are referring to. Who is the "fee" paid to? Where does it go?
It's Georgism. It runs on the false belief that we all own the earth.
Anyone with that belief can't be expected to establish the ownership of all the land of the earth to all the people of the planet. It's a false belief that has to run on the unproven assumption that because we are born we own something other than ourselves.
Ideally, the fee would be paid to the local community/government. Some believe it should be used for programs. Some believe it should be redistributed evenly to the citizens as a BIG. I think it should be a mix of both.
Is that not property taxes and the purchase of the property?
Are you a socialist?
If you improve/maintain land you would be homesteading it. An idea that I am not opposed to, as I've said several times.
Nope. Land has been homesteaded and possessed. It has never been owned. Ownership presupposes creation and the right to destroy. Land "ownership" entails neither.
Yes we know. It disagrees with reality and is irrational.I believe ...
Pretty new to arguments here outside of global warming. That topic is chilled out right now so I am participating in others."Seldom used"??? You new here?
What a juvenile response.
Much success? iLOL
No they haven't.
Your notions of property is not rational.
So you have to post something rational to discuss to begin with.
It was your silly response which generated the exchange. You own it.It is a perfectly legitimate question in response to your silly responses.
:dohWhen implemented even partially it has seen good results.
Alaska
Australia
South Africa
Delaware
California
etc.
That is not about property. Which was the irrational belief being spoke to."You keep what you create." How is that irrational?
Do you believe you have a right to breathe the air around you? Do you believe you have a right to life?
There is no point in self-ownership if we have no right to be on this planet.
Wouldn't that be assuming that government created the land?
Karl Marx is highly propagandized. I didn't agree with all of his ideas, but he laid out some very legitimate, intelligent arguments for a system he supposed would end or reduce poverty and human suffering. There were some good ideas, there were some bad ideas, but he is nowhere near the villain that the Right would like to make him out to be.
I'm aware of how America approaches "property", however I simply disagree with it. I don't think land can be legitimately owned in the sense that you can own an apple or a computer. I am not against possession or homesteading of land. People would still own houses, farm/maintain land, and enjoy a little piece of the world. However claiming that land is "property" has some very disastrous environmental and social consequences. It's important that we understand and recognize that the Earth is owned by everyone.
The government would have no right to tell the landholders how they to use the land, who they can sell it to, etc. Government only acts as referee on behalf of the community.
Land should not be considered the exclusive property of any entity, whether its government, corporations, or individuals. Land is a common right we all share and any exclusive access should be treated as a privilege.
I believe in private property as long as that property is in the hands of the rightful owner. If you build a house, that is your property. No government should tax you for it. But if you exclusively hold a piece of land, which was not created by anyone but God/nature, then the value should be repaid to the community as restitution.
Not part-it is THE solution. Sprinkling in some marxist fail does not help.
First world, far from it. Burdened with mountains of debt and high unemployment. They were using the Keynesian theory of borrow and spend for so many years and where it get them. A mountain of debt and 25% unemployment. And you stand by the Keynesian theory.
They have been trying to recover for years and went broke trying to do it. And you say the 25% of the people are getting aid and allowances are doing great, I call that living in poverty. You liberals want to eyewash everything and deny the facts. Socialism in Spain and in Greece is a picture perfect failure of Socialism. And you say pour more money on the problem and all will go away, problem is no one will give them any money. Does naive mean anything to you?
Now you want to compare Spain with the most impoverished countries such that are prevalent in Africa. I have been to many of them. That is not the point, the point is socialism such as in Greece and in Spain does no work. France is no better, they are all self destructing. Many of those countries in Africa had no economy to begin. Spain, Greece and France did and now because of their socialistic views they are self-destructing. And you use them as a model that the US should follow. I have said over and over, liberals never care about jobs, never have never will.
i don't agree, and having a private and public sector is not Marxism.
:lamo
Moody's raised it from A1 to Aa3. Awesome. Oh, and every budget passed by the legislature is balanced, it's the law. What Brown and his progressive cronies who control the legislature didn't do again this year is pay back the billions they owe state funds they borrowed from in previous years.
If everything is so peachy, why did Brown call for more taxes when he rolled out his last budget?
The fact is, you really don't want to go down the California debate road GC, I am exceedingly well informed on the subject. It's just not worth my time to engage in such a pointless endeavor.
As to your socialist stuff regarding other countries. I don't care a bit. You've been posting that stuff for the longest time, and no matter what evidence is posted that takes the shine off, you throw it aside and start over again.
I'm glad you like all those socialist countries. I don't, and I'll fight people like you who want to bring it here until I'm dead. That's how it goes my friend.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?