R A V E
Rant


14.1.97 Wasted defense. 15.1.97 Production at any cost. 20.1.97 15:57 Free food. 20.1.97 16:04 Toll roads. 23.1.97 Waving movie stars. 24.1.97 Privilege & land monopoly. 25.1.97 Smith was truly correct. 28.1.97 21:11 The right to exist. 28.1.97 21:19 Protecting property. 28.1.97 21:26 Excuses for invisible hands. 30.1.97 15:25 You hire the muscle. 30.1.97 15:33 Consumer ownership. 30.1.97 15:59 First come first served. 1.2.97 From future generations. 6.2.97 19:35 Related to all. 6.2.97 19:40 Corporate jets. 6.2.97 20:30 Involuntary labor. 12.2.97 18:44 Capitalist accountability. 12.2.97 18:53 Who controls property rights. 12.2.97 19:00 To be stolen. 18.2.97 Get a job. 19.2.97 Tell that to the next mugger. From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:21 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. JMH wrote: > > > So I'll ask again, what makes you think the "elected economy" > > > will produce a different outcome than found in political elections? > > Only if the "democracy" isn't dominated by campaign > > contributors, lobbies, and campaign commercials only > > for those who have the money. Then the country might > > actually be ruled by the people instead of by contractors. > Campaigne contributions and lobbying are not the only problems > facing social choice settings. Have you ever heard the term, > in its technical meaning, "agenda setting"? How do you see > your system as having overcome such problems? How can you be > soe sure that the democratic process (not really well articulate > in these threads) will actually serve the general interest and not > some coalition of special interests? Ok, ready for some serious Utopianism? Hold on to your hats: Education: Everyone gets the same education. As much as possible. If you're unemployed, you continue to be fed, housed, and educated. There is no longer a need for parents or employers to fear that they or their children will be unemployed, because the Industrial Revolution has proven that a few farmers can feed everyone. Thus, with a more educated population, we will farm both our oceans and other planets before we are swallowed by the Sun. Drugs: Legalized. But since people no longer live in hopelessness, there would be little need for them. Even dealers and runners will be taken into the fold, but required to meet safety regulations, until they are no longer needed, at which point they too become scholars until they are again productive members of society. Racism: With the end of an economy based on competition, you can only improve your own lot by helping, teaching your neighbor instead of fighting him. Avenues to success will be wide open to anyone with a good education, which is provided free of charge. Crime: See Racism. Warfare: See Racism.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:23:55 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > >Quite true. Since that land *never* first belonged to anybody, > >it *still* doesn't belong to anybody. > Hehehe, you can say it as many times as you want, but if you try to > back up your silly claim by sticking your ugly face over _MY_ property > line, I have the option of deciding whether or not to take legal > action against you. My land belongs to me, and the legal system backs > that up. Yep, the same way it's always worked. Whoever has the most firepower is the rightful owner. Tell THAT to the next mugger that asks for your wallet. -------- It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished. ....unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. --Voltaire
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:12:46 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Rick Jones wrote: > Homeless do have rights, they have a right to buy a home as soon as they > get a job!!!!! And they have a right to produce what they can from our natural resources, without someone shooting them for trespassing.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:00:42 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > >This only begs the question. Why does the first person to come across land > >have a positive right to it in the first place? For all your slippery > >rhetoric, you do not explain why the first settlers are allowed to steal > >from future generations. > In order for something to be stolen from a person, it must first > belong (in some sense) to that person. Quite true. Since that land *never* first belonged to anybody, it *still* doesn't belong to anybody.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:53:06 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Clint Johnson wrote: > > OK, who gets the land after it is released? Everyone in British Columbia? > > Everyone in North America? Everyone in the world? Or the guy with the > > most guns? > Well let's see, I personally would think that a good portion of it would > fall back to the Indians if the treaties that are salvageable were > enforced. A small amount of it could be sold by the province to pay off the > totality of the debt and the rest could be released to be claimed. This > would cause quite the stampede... And why the "Native" Americans? Just because they got there first? First come first served? How do you know they didn't kill anybody else for it? How are you going to measure who gets to a piece of land first? Stopwatch? How much land did he get to? Does he have to step on every square inch himself? With his bare feet? > Socialism isn't particularly friendly towards democracy... the ignorant > masses may vote to allow individual property rights after all. Yes, they may. The difference between the masses controlling property rights and the rich controlling property rights is called democracy.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:44:51 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. JMH wrote: > > Yes, consumers will probably elect representatives much > > like how citizens elect representatives. But the difference > > is that instead of electing reps who blow money on corporate > > jets, they elect reps who put effort into producing a > > cheaper, safer, and better product (not to mention *more* > > of the product, instead of holding back just so prices > > stay up). > No doubt that is what they would hope to accomplish. > The question is why would it be a more likely out > come in some democatic production economy than in > the current competitive one? > What's the incentive structure and how is it better than > the existing one? In an elected economy, production is directly accountable to their electorate. If you make decisions that benefit only yourself, we don't re-elect you (and may even impeach you). In a capitalist economy, production is accountable only to other competition. In other words, consumers only have an indirect say because they have to wait for an alternative. Similar to how Soviet elections and American appointments work: if you don't like the current candidate, you can vote "no", but they could just keep putting up other candidates exactly like the first, and nothing ever gets done.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 20:30:30 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Clint Johnson wrote: > > Currently, homeless people's rights are being violated, by those who > > claim huge amounts of land, thereby displacing others from access to land, > > and raising the price of renting or buying land. > Yes! And the damn state should relenquish the huge tracts of land that it > is holding. Over 90% of the land in British Columbia is the property of the > state. OK, who gets the land after it is released? Everyone in British Columbia? Everyone in North America? Everyone in the world? Or the guy with the most guns? > > As Locke first showed, libertarian principle forbids one person from > > taking more than an equal share of land. Imagine two islands with a > > hundred people on each: on one island, two people own the other 98 as > > slaves. On the other island, there is no slavery, but two people own all > > the land. What's the difference? > On either one of the islands, the people could have a proper socialist > uprising and overthrow the minority. They could institute the usual > socialist system: 2 people would arm 16 people who are willing to do what > ever they ask of them, slaughter 20 people who disagree too vocally, and > assign the other 60 people to involuntary labor. What you are describing is a lack of democracy, a political condition, and has virtually nothing to do with socialism, an economic condition... except the fact that democracy is nearly impossible to achieve as long as the rich are able to buy their way into power.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:40:54 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. JMH wrote: > > Exactly. Price controls cannot force a capitalist to cut > > his own pay and become more efficient. A consumer owned > > company WILL cut his pay, and possibly get rid of him and > > all his buddies in middle-management altogether. > Of course the comsumers will still, in all likelihood, > want to hire some agent to perform a number of the tasks > previously perfromed by the top and middle management of > the productive unit--including probably the B.O.D.--and > will likely act in much the same fashion as do other > shareholders. Yes, consumers will probably elect representatives much like how citizens elect representatives. But the difference is that instead of electing reps who blow money on corporate jets, they elect reps who put effort into producing a cheaper, safer, and better product (not to mention *more* of the product, instead of holding back just so prices stay up).
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:35:24 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > Exactly. Price controls cannot force a capitalist to cut > > his own pay and become more efficient. A consumer owned > > company WILL cut his pay, and possibly get rid of him and > > all his buddies in middle-management altogether. > There seems to be a disconnect between what I am writing and you are > reading. There are many factors contributing to price fluctuations, > mostly based on supply and demand. A lack of desire to become more > efficient is not one of them -- that desire is built into the system. That lack of desire is often entrenched in the fact that middle- management has already been in those cushy jobs for years, and refuses to budge. A consumer owned company will force them to budge, and it won't play favorites because you can't be related to all of them. > > You mean depriving RICH consumers of products they want. Why? > > Because POOR consumers are suddenly buying these products. > Actually, everyone was deprived of gasoline in the 70s, thanks to > these wonderful price maximums. Everyone had to wait in line and > do with less. The problem is that the price maximum, if it has > any effect at all, causes fewer suppliers than would otherwise be found. The problem is that suppliers aren't being paid enough. For the same reason we have a crappy police force: we don't pay them enough. But it doesn't mean the cops have to hand us a bill for each mugger they fight off.
From: Steve Kangas kangaroo@scruznet.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:35:05 -0800 Organization: scruz-net Lazarus Long wrote: > Does everyone who comes into this world arrive with a right to some of it? From > a libertarian perspective..the answer must be no. > "We come into the world equipped with a right not to be harmed, not to have our > liberty violated. But we don't come into the world equipped with a positive > right to any resource."Jan Narveson, The Libertarian Idea Pg 100 > The idea that someone is entitle to compensation by another > because the second person has acquired land is a call for a > positive right to land. This only begs the question. Why does the first person to come across land have a positive right to it in the first place? For all your slippery rhetoric, you do not explain why the first settlers are allowed to steal from future generations. > Suppose family A arrives at some suitable land for farming, and begins > farming...later on, family B arrives and finds that the only suitable land is > held by family A. Clearly B would be better off if A had not already taken the > land. Does B have a claim against A? Is B made less well off than they were? > No, since they didn't have that farmland prior to their arrival. Since they are > not harmed, they have no claim. They, in fact, may be better off since A is > producing goods that B can benefit from. I would like you to compare two sentences taken from the above paragraph: "Clearly B would be better off if A had not already taken the land." And: "They, in fact, may be better off since A is producing goods that B can benefit from." Your arguments are so weak that merely listing the internal contradictions is enough to refute them. But to get to the basic fallacy of your argument: you are arguing that there is moral importance to one's order of arrival. This is an absolutely indefensible position. Liberals, on the other hand, place moral importance on individuals and their personal merit. We don't believe that Dan Quayle should go to college just because his family is rich and was among the first to earn a fortune in the Indiana newspaper business. We think people like Dan Quayle should be accepted to college on the strength of their intellectual merit. And if Dan Quayle was dirt poor but scored 1400 on his SAT tests, he should qualify for public student grants and scholarships that award his merit. Does the taxpayer who has to pay for such public programs get robbed? No. We are all better off for the most efficient allocation of talent and individual merit. Furthermore, there is no reason why the first person has any more right to property than the second person -- unless you believe that order of arrival is a valid moral principle. Liberals merely believe it wasn't the first person's property in the first place. Our property system is a collective agreement, agreed to by everyone who must live under it. Hence the rationale for democratic government. Now, you may argue that the first person has a right to the land, because he has "mixed his labor" with it. But you are confusing two definitions: land and its improvements. A person has a right to keep his improvements, or the fruits of his labor, but this is different from saying that he has a right to the underlying land that enables it. There are various ways to determine how people can keep the fruits of their labor without monopolizing the means of production, and one of the functions of democracy is to sort through these various methods and agree to them. But you have not demonstrated why the first person has a right to the underlying means of production. > The Lockean argument that concludes that those who acquire natural resources in > a free market, without compensating those who get nothing, harm those worse off > members of society by their appropriations, is false. > Why is it false? > What must be answered is... Are those who are without, capable of developing > and using the resource, as the person who has acquired it. If they are not, > then the claim that they have been harmed is false. Even if they were capable > of developing and using the resource...have they been harmed? Again the answer > is no. They have not had the land taken away from them, since they did not have > possession of the land in the first place. This is laughably bad rhetoric. Suppose I monopolized all the air, and told you, as soon as you were born, that you had to pay me for it (a debt you could start retiring once you reached working age). What gives me the right to monopolize air in the first place? The practice is clearly theft against the newcomer. Nor can you "excuse" this injustice on the grounds that if you work hard enough, and gain enough air of your own, that you can extort others who come into the world and need to use your air also. If you think this is a moral system, you're smoking way too much crack. > In a contemporary capitalist economy, the worst off person is still better off > than he would be in a Hobbesian state of nature. "A beggar in the streets of > Manhattan, is enormously better off than a primitive person in any > state-of-nature situation".Pg 92 The Libertarian Idea Hobbes and Locke's argument that there existed a "State of Nature" in which individuals lived in vicious anarchy is known as the "Lockean Fable." Humans have NEVER lived outside of organized, well-structured groups. Group behavior predates the rise of humans; even animals practice it. If you believe otherwise, you have some basic lessons in paleohistory and paleobiology to learn. A beggar in the streets of Manhattan is therefore NOT better off than any of his predecessors. Beggars live in pain and scorn and hunger and disease. They die early. That you would call them relatively well-off is libertarian apologetics at its worst. > The landless person in a capitalist society can work towards purchasing his own > land. It may take time and effort, but he is > *not* prevented from doing so, thus there is no infringement of his liberty. Yes, there is an infringement. Both poverty and prosperity are passed down through living inheritances. Dumb clucks like Dan Quayle get ahead in life not because they are geniuses, but because their families have money. Talented people stay mired in poverty because poverty is a trap: it doesn't give you the tools to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. It takes MONEY to go to college or start a successful business -- money you don't have in the first place. Libertarianism is nothing less than an informal aristocracy. Steve Kangas http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm "The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.'" -- Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1755
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:59:48 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Lazarus Long wrote: > Suppose family A arrives at some suitable land for farming, and begins > farming...later on, family B arrives and finds that the only suitable land is > held by family A. Clearly B would be better off if A had not already taken the > land. Does B have a claim against A? Is B made less well off than they were? > No, since they didn't have that farmland prior to their arrival. Ah, "first come first served". So what happens if person A and B get there at the same time? Do they duke it out? Or do you have some referee on the sideline, holding a stopwatch, and proclaim that A got there .05 seconds before B? How does one arrive "at" land anyway? If I step on Ohio, did I just arrive "at" Ohio? Did I just arrive "at" all of the U.S.? North America? Or do you defined land ownership by who can clear the land first. Care to define "clearing the land"? Cutting all the trees? Digging a mine? Mowing the lawn? Paving it with concrete? Urinating at strategic spots along the boundaries?
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:33:40 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > If Smith were > > right, then random fluctuations would never hurt the > > company in the long run since it's all a downward trend. > > Only the companies who are "not fit to survive" will > > be unable to find more efficient production and survive > > your random fluctuations. > Not all products always get cheaper over the long run, for many reasons, > such as inflation, reduced consumer interest (which spreads the fixed > costs among fewer products), and depletion of supplies. Furthermore, > some of the random fluctuations may last -- for example the government > induced oil crisis of the 70's lasted a decade (created by the price > freezes you recommend), which is way too long for a company to survive. Exactly. Price controls cannot force a capitalist to cut his own pay and become more efficient. A consumer owned company WILL cut his pay, and possibly get rid of him and all his buddies in middle-management altogether. > All a price max can hope to accomplish is 1) create short/no-so-short > term shortages, thereby depriving consumers of products they want, You mean depriving RICH consumers of products they want. Why? Because POOR consumers are suddenly buying these products.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: quickshift, was Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:25:48 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > The homeless? Anyone with any property? If you have more > > property than I do (thereby requiring more police protection), > > shoud I pay just as much in taxes as you? Who is going to > > decide how much? > Actually, police are not the main protectors of property rights, the > courts are. The police are only necessary for those who refuse to > abide by the court's decisions. And, in general, it is not true that > the more property you have, the more police protection you need. If > anything, once you reach a certain level of wealth/property, you start > to hire private security and live in better neighborhoods, so you > actually need less police protection. So why not do away with the entire system of publicly funded police, courts, and penitentiaries? If you want to protect your own property, *you* hire the muscle. If *we* claim your property belongs to us, *we* hire the muscle to deal with yours. No more taxes, no problem. > > If a nation that wants to invade tells me it won't > > take away any of MY property, but WILL take away the property > > of other people, do *I* have to support the military? > If you believe them, you deserve to have your property taken away. So say I claim to believe them. Then I no longer need to pay taxes to fund our military right? Just because all my neighbors are hiring an army to defend the country, it doesn't mean *I* have to. Right?
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:26:28 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > If we are all so sure that the application of Smith's theories > > will result in lower prices through cheaper production, then > > why be afraid to set maximums on prices? If Smith were truly > > correct, then we wouldn't even have to worry about prices > > exceeding those maximums, so price control laws wouldn't even > > need enforcement funding. > Of course, it depends on where you set the maximums. If it is at > the current level or somewhere near that, random demand/supply > supply fluctuations may cause it to exceed that. And THAT's what the maximum is there for. If Smith were right, then random fluctuations would never hurt the company in the long run since it's all a downward trend. Only the companies who are "not fit to survive" will be unable to find more efficient production and survive your random fluctuations. Freemarketeers love to make excuses for not achieving what they claim a free market "is destined" (by some invisible hand of God) to achieve.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:19:12 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > Should the homeless have any rights at all? > The homeless have the same rights as anyone else -- the right to what > they please as long as it doesn't infringe on others equal right to > do the same; the right to own themselves and the output of their labor; > the right to be free of aggression. Nobody has any more rights than > that. So who is going to uphold the right to property? The police? Who is going to pay for it? Taxes? Who are you going to tax? The homeless? Anyone with any property? If you have more property than I do (thereby requiring more police protection), shoud I pay just as much in taxes as you? Who is going to decide how much? How about military protection from foreign nations? If a nation that wants to invade tells me it won't take away any of MY property, but WILL take away the property of other people, do *I* have to support the military?
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:11:49 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Lazarus Long wrote: > cg> Does liberty include the right to exist? If I just bought all the > cg> land in the world and told you to get off my land, it is my right is > cg> it not? > First you have to get everyone else to sell their land to > you.. the point, like most of yours...is a non-issue. Ok, say I didn't buy all the land. Say instead that my brother conquered all the land with an army and THEN sold all the land to me. Now I have the right to tell you to get off my land right? Or would you claim that I have less of a right to tell you to get off my land if I owned all of it? > cg> If you trace back the land you are on right now to its original > cg> owner, who do you think it was? Was there a time in prehistory when > cg> all land was evenly divided up among all people like a bunch of > cg> commies? More likely than not, the land was originally used by all > cg> inhabitants (and unfenced as well), until someone came in with an > cg> army and declared the land was his. > More than likely property was first defined when some > primitive man discovered that rather than root > indiscriminately for forage, he could harvest a regular crop > from certain plants..and since he did the work of clearing > the non-edible plants and keeping animals from consuming the > crop...he would be the one who decided who got anything from > that plant...and therefore that piece of land. And what if primitiveman's neighbor also wanted to use the same land? Then is it a race of who can clear more land the fastest? If they both get to that last square foot at the same time, who gets to take the first swipe at it? Probably not the guy who instead takes a first swipe at the other guy's head. > Again, the point is rather moot, since the task of tracing > land back to the original owners is impossible(darned fools > didn't keep good records of their title deeds). Exactly. And because we cannot right all the wrongs that have been committed in prehistory by tracing back all land holdings, the only logical alternative is either communism or to redivide all the land once again among all people. The second alternative of course is also impossible, because even if your piece of land is the same size as mine, yours may be on fertile soil and mine may be in an oil field.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 12:44:33 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > > but the capitalist system of markets, as articulated by the likes > > > of Smith, are expected to minimize these profits and promote the > > > low-cost production technology. > > If we all love Smith so much, then why not make sure his > > grand theories come to fruition BY minimizing these > > profits AND promoting "the low-cost production technology"? > The "free" in free markets refers to constraints on trade > decisions, not to the price of commodities. Is Mr. J. > McCarthy willing to have the prices of the commodities he > sells (perhaps his labor) so minimized? If not, then why > is he willing to take from others. If we are all so sure that the application of Smith's theories will result in lower prices through cheaper production, then why be afraid to set maximums on prices? If Smith were truly correct, then we wouldn't even have to worry about prices exceeding those maximums, so price control laws wouldn't even need enforcement funding.
From: pimann@pobox.com (Dan Sullivan) Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:19:49 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Fair Tax Coalition "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com wrote: >Dan Sullivan wrote: >> >> > > Capitalism attempts to accomplish things >> >> > > with the least amount of labor and resources; it's cheaper that way. >> It is also less wasteful. What is the problem? >How about the money spent on marketing? Not wasteful for >the company that's trying to sell its products I'm sure. >But wasteful for the society that could've spent that >money in better ways, like researching exactly which >product is better instead of waiting for marketers to >lie to you or wave movie stars at you. So, don't read the marketing crap and go do your research. Nobody's stopping you. As for whether the society could have spent that money in better ways, so what? Maybe I can spend your money better than you can, so GIVE it to me. NOW!! If money belongs to whoever can best spend it, instead of whoever earned it, then money has no meaning at all. As for marketers lying to us, the underlying question is why people persist in responding positively to lies. >> >> > It also attempts to maximize the profit margin by raising >> >> > the price as high as possible without scaring away the >> >> > customers. >> Yes, but then the customer attempts to minimize the profit margin >> by getting the best deal possible. What is the problem? >I'd take the consumer's side. If we could only get oxygen >by buying tanks of it, then sure, consumers will try to >find the cheapest oxygen possible. But they still have to >buy it. And of course, no capitalist company would be >stupid enough to give away its oxygen for free and put >itself out of business. But oxygen is a natural resource, not a product of labor. You focus on the wrong side of the issue, for the problem is not oxygen being provided in bottles, but the theft of oxygen from the air. This has historically been the near-miss of socialism. When the landlords enclosed the commons and drove the people into the factories, the socialists focused their wrath on the factory owners. >> shortage of low cost production technology. The shortage attracts >> more producers, who compete and bring down the prices and >> profits. You can no more improve on this equilibrium than you >> could improve your circulation by consciously telling your blood >> vessels when to dilate. >Sure you can. How about leveling the playing field so >that the entry cost into any business is the same for >every individual? A healthy dose of land value tax would do just that. However, your prior statement, as I recall, was not about equality of opportunity, but upon attempting to dictate results by regulating markets. >> Smith argued that governments should >> tax land rent instead of taxing productive investment. >I'd agree with you on land tax, but there's a difference >between productive "investment" and productive "return". >If your company produces wealth by building houses, then >you don't deserve to be taxed as much as a company that >"produces wealth" by stock market speculation, or the >man who "produces wealth" by inheritance. Let us look at these three cales. In the first case, one produces wealth, such as houses, and legitimately has a right to the proceeds of this productivity. In the second case, one is speculating in stocks, which does not directly produce anything. But let us look at what the company that issued the stocks is doing. If that company is itself monopolizing land, then land value tax will take what is due directly from the company before any stock dividends or stock values can be calculated. If on the other hand, the company is building houses, then the company has the same right to the proceeds as in the first case. Now, if the owner of the company, or the owner of shares in the company, wants to sell some of these, is it not his right to do so? Now the fact of the matter is that corporate property tends to pay more when taxes are shifted off productivity and onto land, because corporations tend to be less land efficient. However, the corporation is just a form for organizing and transferring value. The real question is whether that value derives from wealth production of from monopolization of privilege. In the third case, someone acquires wealth, again either through productivity, such as building houses, or through privilege, such as land monopoly. Again, I say, if the person truly earned the wealth and cares to give it to his children, what business is it of ours? We have no more right to it now than before. It is as if someone baked a cake and gave it to you. You have as much right to that cake as if you had baked it yourself. But again, what if the wealth flowed from land monopoly or some other privilege? Then, perhaps, the inheritor has a weaker claim but only because the benefactor already had a weaker claim. Now, inherited property tends also to be land, especially if one considers property that is inherited through generations. For example, what if Dad had that home-building business you mentioned. He could leave it to one or more of his children, but it would hold its value only if those children happened to have a flair for home building themselves. If not, the company is likely to stagnate, for homebuilding is a very competitive and risky business. But if Dad left the kids land, all they have to do is call a real estate agent who will rent the land out and send them a monthly check. If it is improved land, some oversight from the owners is in order, but if it is unimproved land, not even that much is necessary; just lease it out to the highest bidder and you are set for generations, without either you or Dad having actually produced anything at all. Remember, the primary factors of production are land and labor. Capital is not a primary factor, but a byproduct of land and labor. Dan Sullivan The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school. --George Bernard Shaw
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:15:31 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Dan Sullivan wrote: > >> > > Capitalism attempts to accomplish things > >> > > with the least amount of labor and resources; it's cheaper that way. > It is also less wasteful. What is the problem? How about the money spent on marketing? Not wasteful for the company that's trying to sell its products I'm sure. But wasteful for the society that could've spent that money in better ways, like researching exactly which product is better instead of waiting for marketers to lie to you or wave movie stars at you. > >> > It also attempts to maximize the profit margin by raising > >> > the price as high as possible without scaring away the > >> > customers. > Yes, but then the customer attempts to minimize the profit margin > by getting the best deal possible. What is the problem? I'd take the consumer's side. If we could only get oxygen by buying tanks of it, then sure, consumers will try to find the cheapest oxygen possible. But they still have to buy it. And of course, no capitalist company would be stupid enough to give away its oxygen for free and put itself out of business. > shortage of low cost production technology. The shortage attracts > more producers, who compete and bring down the prices and > profits. You can no more improve on this equilibrium than you > could improve your circulation by consciously telling your blood > vessels when to dilate. Sure you can. How about leveling the playing field so that the entry cost into any business is the same for every individual? > Smith argued that governments should > tax land rent instead of taxing productive investment. I'd agree with you on land tax, but there's a difference between productive "investment" and productive "return". If your company produces wealth by building houses, then you don't deserve to be taxed as much as a company that "produces wealth" by stock market speculation, or the man who "produces wealth" by inheritance.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:04:14 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > Ok, how about laws that prevent me from driving on any > > side of the road that I choose? > The owner of the road has the right to define the rules of use, and > in fact has a responsibility to reach a reasonable level of safety. Say I want to use the road owned by somebody else. Now, does the owner of that road have the right to demand from me that I help fund free public education and health care? > > How about a law that > > prevents me from stockpiling 6 tons of unprotected > > explosives in my family room? > 1) you must live far enough away from everyone that accidental > detonation will not harm anyone else or their property, or 2) you > must take precautions to ensure that you will no accidentally set > your explosives off. In other words, as long as you pose no threat > to others with this crazy scheme that you apparently can't wait to > do, I guess it's OK. Why must I do all this? Is that not setting a limit on my freedom? You're going to force me to buy a house far away? You're going to force me to pay for whatever thingamajigs that prevent random explosions? What if I dispute your claim that what I'm doing is actually unsafe?
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:57:43 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > A law which forced you to prevent murder would have as much chance > of working as the laws which attempt to force you to prevent poverty. Why have laws that prevent me from causing traffic accidents by making it illegal for me to park in the middle of the road? Why have laws that force me to fund military protection for my neighbors? > Capitalism attempts to accomplish things > with the least amount of labor and resources; it's cheaper that way. It also attempts to maximize the profit margin by raising the price as high as possible without scaring away the customers. > If you could feed the world with the push of a button, everyone else > would be making the houses, roads, computers, art, and Cannabilistic > Cabbage Patch Dolls (tm). Who could complain about that? No one except the people in the food business. And they'd lobby the hell out of Congress to make it infeasible to give away free food. Failing that, they'd just hire the guy making the free food, and then go back to charging their old prices.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democras.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 15:41:39 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > Why must we remove each individual's incentive to be a good > > person my passing anti-murder laws? I shouldn't kill you > > BECAUSE I'M A GOOD PERSON, not BECAUSE THEY'D PUT ME IN JAIL > > IF I KILL YOU. > This is the opposite of the welfare state, which, rather than preventing > an aggressive act is attempting to force a positive act. OK, let's pass laws that prevent the aggressive acts of lowering someone's pay with respect to inflation, or raising the cost of a product with respect to inflation. Now you say, "but if you force me to raise your pay, you are hurting me because I am forced to give more for the same work." Now I say, "but if you force me to lower my gun, you are hurting me because now I have to endure you as my neighbor." > is that the government only gets about 1/3 of the money to the people > the programs were designed to help, compared to charities/churches, > which get 75% or more to the needy. If cutting waste is your goal, I'm all for it. I have no problem with redirecting all of our federal and state funding for welfare into more efficient institutions. > > And what's wrong with hopping onto the gravy train? > Either this proposed gravy train is so good that it significantly > hurts our ability to be productive So your ultimate goal is to "be productive" at any cost. Whether it's being productive producing new studies about the effects of sun spots on the rabbit population in Madagascar, or being productive in predicting the love life of Kenny Kingston. Isn't there a point where being more productive is nice, but no longer needs to be a life-or-death decision? If a society can support all its citizens without further production, sure, being able to juggle another 10 bowling pins will be useful, but don't force me to starve just because I refuse to juggle.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.reform, alt.politics.socialism, seattle.politics, alt.politics.radical-left, talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Amendment Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:44:17 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jim Glass wrote: > >Boeing is best choice of a military contractor? What if the > >average sweat shop worker couldn't care less if the country were > >ruled by the current government or that of Canada or Cuba? > Such a worker would be a fool--as would be a person who could > pose such a question. Even sweat-shop workers in the West > fare much better than ones living under the Cuban dictatorship. > Note: they will do ANYTHING to get away from that place-- that > "worker's paradise" with its "free medical care" and "universal > education". They will lash together inner tubes and set out > upon shark-infested waters, hoping to drift 90 miles to freedom. Lured by American culture, and what often turn out to be false-hopes, yes, many do escape and come to our teeming shores, only to be run-down by border police or forced into a life of prostitution (at least the prostitutes here earn more than they do in Mexico) or settle for welfare ("a glorious return to socialism"). > As for Canada, I fail to appreciate the connection with Cuba. > Like saying Britain is morally equivalent to North Korea. Then you are willing to admit that my tax money is not being wasted on defense against Canada. If Canada decides to invade Maine, we Americans would politely let them have it.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian, alt.activism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.flame.rush-limbaugh, alt.journalism.criticism, alt.news-media, alt.politics.clinton, alt.politics.correct, alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.politics.reform, alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.african.american, talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.theory Subject: Re: The Ebonics Hysteria -- An Inquiry Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:38:31 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Big Oh wrote: > =| It's quite possible that nobody in this discussion can speak > =| Black English, and if so, no one is likely to post any. > Why would anyone in this newsgroup want to speak the old English spoken by > the commoner 300 years ago? > Should we make the old English _Beowulf_ was written in a new language or > should we just recognize that it is very ancient English? Why then do we hold up Shakespeare to be the ultimate hero of English literature, but single out as a prime example of "incorrectness" a dialect better understood by a far larger percentage of modern America?
14.1.97 Language incompetency. From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.conspiracy,rec.org.mensa,alt.politics.media,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,talk.environment,alt.journalism Subject: Re: Ebonics Is A Good Idea Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:49:30 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Dean A. Bahr wrote: > Communication skills are it (except in purely technical areas and they > are critical there) I have a daughter in College and a Grandson going > next year. They both asked me about classes that helped me and I will > insist to my dying day that English and Englsih Composition are the > most valuable. If you can't communicate-YOU ARE LOST! Exactly. Communication is key. Why hire a manager that can only communicate with, say, 70% of the population when you can hire one that communicates with 90%? It's like buying an operating system that can only run 32 bit applications, instead of one that can run both 16 and 32.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory, alt.current-events.usa, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.conspiracy, rec.org.mensa, alt.politics.media, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.correct, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.clinton, alt.president.clinton, alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy, talk.environment, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.usa.misc, alt.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich, talk.politics.libertarian, talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.reform, talk.environment, alt.journalism Subject: Re: Ebonics Is A Good Idea Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:30:57 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. D. Brinson wrote: > > What employer is going to hire someone who uses the word > > "ain't" once during his interview? What employer is going > > to hire someone who has a different skin color? What > > employer is going to hire someone of a different gender? > > (unless of course, she has big boobs) > Most employers today want to hire the best qualified person that > they can. That does not mean that there are not bigotted persons > out there (of all races, sexes, etc..) that would never hire anyone > that was just like them, but I truely don't believe that this is > the case in the majority of cases. However, only an idiot would hire > someone to work in this country that cannot communicate effectively > in proper (grammatically, not morally) American-English. You're right. If I were a manager, I wouldn't hire someone who could only speak to me in German. But if I were a manager who had no idea what "y'all" meant or couldn't understand someone who says to me "I be doin' a build right after you gets them files checked in." then I'd be the idiot. This new employee is incompetent because I can't talk to her while I'm pissing in the bathroom, thereby delaying the lines of communication. Incompetency can also be measured by the inability to understand broken immigrant English.
13.1.97 Agreeing to pay. 19.1.97 Rents vs. taxes. 27.1.97 You weren't slaughtered. 15.3.97 Contract with a landlord. 25.3.97 Who taketh and who giveth away. 3.4.97 The world would be no worse off. 4.4.97 17:51 Man-made and natural resources. 4.4.97 19:15 A reduction in the money supply. From: "H. Stowe" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Landlord = a Local Government Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 17:23:56 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Aisa Rosenbaum wrote: > Taxes divert money to non-market driven uses. The money is not > destroyed by taxes, but redistributed. Only a reduction in the > money supply can cause deflation. Deflation never happens today > because INflation benefits those who control the money supply. False. Less currency isn't the only path to deflation. Deflation also results if demand is satisfied by giving away things for free (ie. welfare). Of course, under capitalism, marketing has made people believe that a brand new Range Rover with power-locks and dual-side vanity mirrors is more valuable than the education of another human being. ------- If you hit a man over the head with a fish, he'll have a headache for a day. But if you teach a man to hit himself over the head with a fish, he'll have headaches for the rest of his life.
From: "J. Steinbeck" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Landlord = a Local Government Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 19:15:44 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Aisa Rosenbaum wrote: > Taxes themselves do not cause deflation. Deflation can only > occur if the money supply is reduced relative to the goods it > represents (Of course the government could destroy the > money it seizes in taxes, but that would be a reduction in > the money supply.). In a supply&demand economy, here's what happens when a government raises taxes: 1. People are less likely to buy expensive goods. Less demand. The price of expensive goods fall. 2. If the government uses that tax money to support welfare, it is creating demand for food and shelter. 3. However, since people are getting food and shelter for free, demand for those goods in the consumer market falls. That's precisely how price controls work. In an autocratic economy, prices are determined by deluded managers. In a market economy, prices are determined by whoever has the most money. In a democratic economy... well, figure that part out by yourself.
From: "J. Steinbeck" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Landlord = a Local Government Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 17:51:18 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Dan Sullivan wrote: > You misapprehend the classical liberal definition of capital as a > category of land, labor and capital. Capital refers primarily to > genuine wealth, that is products of labor used to assist futire > production. A plow is capital and a factory is capital. Money is > not capital, but is a claim on capital. > Land is not produced. This notion of "production" as a claim to distinguishing between man-made and natural resources is bogus. Something produced by human beings 1000 years ago might as well just be a rock standing out there in the open, whether its a well, a quarry, a mine, or a skyscraper. Only coercion or mutual agreement can stop another person from using it. > >taxes, what would happen? Nothing but deflation. The price > >of everything would be cut in half. > I don't see this. It might depend on which taxes you are talking > about, but generally high taxes on productivity lead to decreased > productivity, which in turn leads to higher prices. False. It's just a frame of mind. A billion stock brokers might jump for joy when the Dow rockets up 300 points or cry like babies when it plunges 300 points, but in the end, no money has ANY effect on your life, UNTIL you use it to trade for the product of someone else's effort.
From: "J. Steinbeck" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Landlord = a Local Government Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 16:25:48 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Dan Sullivan wrote: > Do not fall into the confusion of confounding land with capital. > Capitalists provide opportunities to the extent that they save up > created wealth and apply it toward the creation of more wealth. > This was clearly understood by the classical liberals, who > treated land, labor and capital as distinct entities. Indeed distinct. The first two actually exist. The third is nothing but a figment of our imaginations. Nothing but paper and numbers. It could all easily disappear tomorrow and the world would be no worse off. The capitalist belief in money is as unreal as the belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. If every government in the world doubled its taxes, what would happen? Nothing but deflation. The price of everything would be cut in half. The only question is what is to be done with that tax money. Whether it's wasted on warfare and competition, or invested in welfare and education.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Landlord = a Local Government Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:45:32 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Roy Lemons wrote: > > And indeed, most who were brought up with a capitalist > > "education" DO in fact agree that someone else has a right > > to "their" land. Of course, what they don't realize is > > that the education system itself was created by the > > original conquerers in order to perpetuate their own claim > > to their conquered lands. > Stop asking for a free handout. Get out there and make something of > yourself and get some land if you want it. Stop asking people to give > you what they or their families have worked hard to get. Land simply exists. Those who control the government can control who has access to that land. And because they have this control, they can demand a cut from everything their employees produce. It's capitalists that take from their workers. And it's welfare laws that attempt to give some back to society in general, in hopes that an educated underclass might be able to produce new scientific or political knowledge. Those in power oppose this of course, because we live in a society based on competition.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Landlord = a Local Government Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 18:13:13 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tony Veca wrote: > >You know, if you held a gun to my head and told me you'd > >put a bullet through my brains if I didn't give you my > >wallet, I would AGREE to give it to you too. In fact, > >it's quite a bargain that I got. My brains for just $20. > >If the only way I could live to see Friday was for you > >to sell me a jug of water in exchange for my son, I'd > >AGREE to pay that too. > I have a question. What does having a gun pointed at you head have anything > thing to do with a contract you willing enter into with a landlord? Everything, because the landlord can only enforce his deed with guns. Let's go back in time when there was more land than anybody knew what to do with. So early humans just used what they felt like. How did they ever come about dividing up the land? Two possibilities: 1) Violence, coercion, intimidation. Clearly as wrong a method of property determination today as it was then. 2) Mutual agreement. Now that's where the sticking point lies. Those who originally agreed are no longer here. In order for the claim to be valid, all current members of society must also agree to this ownership. And indeed, most who were brought up with a capitalist "education" DO in fact agree that someone else has a right to "their" land. Of course, what they don't realize is that the education system itself was created by the original conquerers in order to perpetuate their own claim to their conquered lands.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: Landlord = a Local Government Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:23:23 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. P. Marks wrote: > How about people in the United States whose ancestors may have stolen land > (even though Indians did not live on all of the land, by the way) but over > a hundred years have changed it beyond recognition (not just building > cities but even farm work changes land over time) - are they to be > punished (by having their land stolen) for crimes that may (or may not) > have been committed by their ancestors. So changing it beyond recognition is good enough eh? Say I inherited a billion dollars from my dead Dad. Nobody seems to know where his money came from (mainly because he's already killed everyone who did). Then, one day, they discover long lost documents that prove that my father slaughtered 30,000 Jews and stole their money. But hey, it's my money now. What right do *you* have to it? *You* weren't slaughtered. Besides, I've already used that money to do something valuable, like buy me a new 48" TV with remote.
From: romike@hermesnet.net Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics Subject: Re: Landlord = a Local Government Date: 19 Jan 1997 08:12:51 -0500 Organization: Hermes Internet Service, Inc., Washington, DC On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:42:34 -0800, JMH jmhall@erols.com wrote: >At what point does a payment cease being a price and become >a tax? I'm sorry I just don't see the landlord's rent as anything >but a price, and one regulated as are all other prices. Taxation >follows a different logic. The U.S. Constitution gives state governments the power to tax the inhabitants of their territory, and also upholds laws that give landlord governments the power to tax the inhabitants (tenants) of their territory. Decentralist libertarians, such as the Libertarian Party, only want to decentralize all or most government power to the level of landlord governments, allowing them to have full power to collect taxes ("rent") and make local laws ("lease conditions"). But individual rights libertarians, in the tradition of Jefferson, Paine, and JS Mill, want to go farther, and also limit the taxing power of landlord governments. A way to tell the difference between a legitimate landlord government (ie one with a legitimate deed and lease) and an illegitimate landlord government is if that landlord government collects taxes and spends them on welfare payments to the landlord. As people in the real estate industry agree, most of the value of land comes from three things: location, location, and location. Usually, the part of land value contributed by the landlord government is only a small fraction of that value. If a landlord government collects payments for the part of location value that it did not produce, then that is a tax, which the landlord government spends on welfare payments to the landlord.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.libertarian, talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: Landlord = a Local Government Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 19:23:36 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Aaron Evans wrote: > Maybe you should take into consideration that people AGREE to pay > money to landlords. Taxes, on the other hand, are based on coercion. > People pay landlords, as a contract, in order to use their property. > The government, on the other hand, doesn't own the property it taxes. You know, if you held a gun to my head and told me you'd put a bullet through my brains if I didn't give you my wallet, I would AGREE to give it to you too. In fact, it's quite a bargain that I got. My brains for just $20. If the only way I could live to see Friday was for you to sell me a jug of water in exchange for my son, I'd AGREE to pay that too.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.libertarian, talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: Socialists Endorse Protection Rackets. Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 19:14:26 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Giovanni 8 wrote: > > But is unlimited land ownership any of these things? Is it moral > > for some to grab up all the land (or all the better land) and not > > compensate the landless? > It is moral for people to retain the land and other property which > is theirs and leave to others the land and other property which > belongs to them. It is immoral for people to take away the land > or other property that belongs to another. Is it moral for people to retain land that was orginally stolen 6 generations ago but long forgotten and/or denied? Is it moral for a baron to make it illegal for anyone except other aristocracy to produce bread, and then charge exorbitant prices for it? Is it moral for a lord to tax his peasants "in order to raise an army to defend them", when in fact the army is being used so that he can tax more peasants?

|HOME| CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu [email/index]

Click Here! |count|
|11/13|