The Georgists

[Pat McCotter]

Aww, Hankster, you spoiled the book for me! I don't have to read it now that you've told me all about it!

Also, my mind is not closed to new viable ideas on community building and ideal governance - or lack thereof. I just will not slog through reams of pages defining terms when I have a life to live. I have learned what is important to me. I have participated in politics. I've pulled my head out of the books and begun to live.

[Dreepa]

What a coincidence. I am currently reading Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

I just started reading that today too!

[BillG]

I just will not slog through reams of pages defining terms when I have a life to live.

but instead read a 525 page book by Jared Diamond?

re-framing is all about controlling the terms of the debate...

no interest in knowing that there is a way to insure equal liberty by protecting labor-based property rights as a basis for a minarchist government?

[Ron Helwig]

* What gave you the right to claim that particular piece of land you claim to own? (I mean how did the original owner of a piece get it. You probably bought it legitimately from a previous owner. How do you justify the first owner's claim?)

The first owner would have to have come on the land, settled down and lived on it.

Why? I can think of lots of other uses of the land that don't require living on it.

The piece of land I am in the process of purchasing has been used for the last twenty years as a vacation spot. In fact it is very likely that the owner hasn't even visited it for a few years. That doesn't mean I can just take it.


BTW, I don't expect to be convincing a lot of people right away. It took us well over 100 years to get this far into socialism, and I expect it will be decades before we can return to a freedom similar to that of the times of the founding fathers.

Mostly I want people to actively think about these issues. If they can come up with rational bases for their beliefs, great. If they can convince me I'm wrong, that's fine too. I came to this semi-geo-libertarian perspective by applying the lessons of how to think clearly that I learned while becoming a semi-TOC-objectivist.

[BillG]

I'll be happy to fight eminent domain tyrany allied with any Ghandi devotee, theist, green party member, animal, mineral or vegetable right down to single-celled creatures.  We can argue about the other things after we reclaim property rights.

That is because you and others apparently do not understand the nature of property rights...

We have absolute property rights in ourselves and in anything we do to transform the natural world into useful products via our labor to use ourselves or trade for voluntarily to continue living. That's it!

The problem occurs because unfortunately at some point the private use of the natural world by some infringes on the absolute property rights to self and labor for others...

[BillG]

I came to this semi-geo-libertarian perspective by applying the lessons of how to think clearly that I learned while becoming a semi-TOC-objectivist.

you are one brave dude Ron!

[Dreepa]

I'll be happy to fight eminent domain tyrany allied with any Ghandi devotee, theist, green party member, animal, mineral or vegetable right down to single-celled creatures.? We can argue about the other things after we reclaim property rights.

That is because you and others apparently do not understand the nature of property rights...

We have absolute property rights in ourselves and in anything we do to transform the natural world into useful products via our labor to use ourselves or trade for voluntarily to continue living. That's it!

The problem occurs because unfortunately at some point the private use of the natural world by some infringes on the absolute property rights to self and labor for others...

Lets say you are right.

How do you get from here and now to there?
Ain't going to happen.
Do you have steps that can ease us there?
Are you working towards this or just continue to argue (piss in the wind?)  send this debate back to the FSP forum.

No one is taking my land... no one.

[Ron Helwig]

I came to this semi-geo-libertarian perspective by applying the lessons of how to think clearly that I learned while becoming a semi-TOC-objectivist.

you are one brave dude Ron!

Growing up I would never have believed that was possible (my being brave). However, 4 years in the Army (as a nuclear missile pacifist  - got some interesting stories there) did have a significant impact on me. Jumping out of an airplane at 3500 feet does wonders!

[president]

Jumping out of an airplane at 3500 feet does wonders!

You should try 800 feet at night. 

[president]

No one is taking my land... no one.

My rifle has greater range than your shotgun.
I win.

[Dreepa]

No one is taking my land... no one.

My rifle has greater range than your shotgun.
I win.

I believe that first strikes are ok. 

[president]

No one is taking my land... no one.

My rifle has greater range than your shotgun.
I win.

I believe that first strikes are ok. 

You will be easy to pick off sitting on your front porch.

"You never know when death's comin, all you hear is gunshots
Lil' kids get to runnin, old ladies get off the block"  -G-unit, footprints

[BillG]

Lets say you are right.

How do you get from here and now to there?
Ain't going to happen.
Do you have steps that can ease us there?
Are you working towards this or just continue to argue (piss in the wind?)  send this debate back to the FSP forum.

No one is taking my land... no one.

first let's not just "say" I am right...

why don't we first establish that I am infact right before deciding on any "just" prescriptions?

does not that make more sense?

[Dreepa]

No because you aren't right.

1.  It will never happen here.  People like the land they own and they are not going to give it up freely.
2.  Land is not owned commonly.
3.  It smacks of socialism.

[BillG]

No because you aren't right.

1.  It will never happen here.  People like the land they own and they are not going to give it up freely.
2.  Land is not owned commonly.
3.  It smacks of socialism.

ownership is a bundle of rights not a single right...use, exclusion, possession, transferability AND economic rent when it appears beyond Locke's proviso.

land is not owned in common - just the return on land...the economic rent.

land "value" is market value which is objective not utility value which is subjective.

socialism is state ownership of the means of production - land, labor, capital.

today we have socialism because we don't absolutely own our labor.
we don't absolutely own our labor because the state needs money to provide collective services to clean up the mess we are making by using the commons beyond sustainability and empowering corporations too much.

if economic rent were owned in common then we wouldn't need much for services.

Greens would be happy because we would restrict our use of the commons as a source and sink only to Locke's proviso and the economic rent (what was formerly negative externalities) would create a TRUE cost pricing system (Greens want this)

Libertarians would be happy because we would remove all taxation off of labor and capital which IS theft.

The citizens dividend would not touch a bureaucrats hands (libertarians happy) and would provide a basic income guarantee (greens happy).

Minarchists would be happy because the state is doing only what is minimally necessary.

Anarchists are never happy....