Re: US dollar: modern history

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 07/05/04 

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 07:13:55 GMT

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 03:26:14 GMT, Johnny Marcos <johnny5@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote in news:40e84775.3458141@news.telus.net:
>
>> I have never said or implied any such thing. Aboriginals have no more
>> right to deny land to peaceful immigrants than immigrants have to deny
>> it to aboriginals.
>
>My friend currently parks in walmart parking lot because if he parks
>anywhere else the police will arrest him for vagrancy - where do you live
>so him and his buddies can come park thier cars and use your land? You
>are not going to tell me are you?

ROTFL! Good guess.

>He is still going to have to park in
>walmart parking lot isn't he?

He can if he wants.

>> ROTFL!! I am not the one demanding to reap, in perpetuity, where I
>> never sowed.
>
>My grandmother is not going to live forever - when she dies the part of
>the ss tax you pay to keep her alive will die with her. Her house fell
>into decay long ago when she went into the old folks home - the county
>still taxes her on it and they have tax lien certificates on her land
>going back to at least 1995 or maybe even earlier

Too bad the county doesn't tax it at a high enough rate to get her to
sell it to someone who will use it.

>- I am sure you can go
>buy a tax lien on her house and for PENNIES on the dollar get her land in
>a forced tax deed sale

Yes, well, you seem to be sure of a lot of falsehoods...

>- so what is your problem? I research tax liens
>all over this country - there are literally millions and millions of
>pieces of lands to get every year - rich lands, poor lands, crop lands,
>commercial lands, residential lands for practically NOTHING.

??? Yeah, like, real estate prices are skyrocketing because there's
just so much land lying around that people can get for next to
nothing.

Did you ever consider _thinking_ about what you post?

>In my
>county alone there is several thousand pieces of property the old people
>here in florida who have went into old folks homes are not paying on, the
>properties are FILLED with trees - huge amounts of timber - some are old
>farms, all you have to do is get the tax lien, force the tax deed sale,
>and for 20 dollars in some cases take over land that has literally
>thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in timber on it or
>uncultivated crops - yet there are TONS of this land all over this
>country and no one is DOING anything - you just sit around and bitch.

?? ROTFL!! Yeah, right. You know about all these properties
available for pennies on the dollar, which professional real estate
speculators just can't seem to get interested in, even as real estate
is skyrocketing. Riiiiight.

>For to actually spend a few minutes finding it and then chopping the
>timber or getting a lumber company to do it for you wastes your time
>doesn't it?

ROTFL! Do you honestly think anyone reading this is so unacquainted
with the operations of markets that they will believe such vast
opportunities are going unexploited?

>> <yawn> I've seen it. As you know, it is completely unrelated to
>> anything I have written.
>
>You say economic rent is evil

No, I don't. Privileging some to collect it when others create it is
evil.

>- landowners are denying access to the
>younger and stronger of us to use that land to it's maximum capacity
>right?

That's one part of the problem.

>The maximum benefit of the workers can be achieved if we give the
>workers all the land.

No, that would just turn _them_ into parasites in turn.

>You can get it, cultivate the commodity products
>growing on it, and make out like a bandit - I have told you how

Yeah, and nobody else is doing it because that land is like, hidden
under some other land, or something, so nobody can find it.

Riiiight.

>- are you
>gonna stay here and whine like a spoiled bitch or go do some WORK
>citizen? My grandmother has nothing left to take but her house and farm
>that no one seems to want to take and WORK like she and her husband
>worked for 40 years - they grew oranges and sweet potatoes and fed
>themselves until they were both over 90. The last 10 years of thier life
>they need to depend on SS payments but you want to take that from them.

I have of course said no such thing, and you are again just lying
about what I have plainly written.

>> Now you are also lying about the content of Logan's Run.
>
>The old were considered a burden on the system, non productive

False. Nowhere in the film is any such claim made. And for good
reason: it is nonsensical.

>- you say
>take thier land - it's there to get.

Lie.

>If you take away the money spent on
>my grandmother for her food and drugs she will die - if you take away the
>rent my mother collects to pay for her food and drugs she will die - not
>as quickly as in logans run - but it is killing them none the less.

<yawn> Just as abolishing slavery was called "killing" the elderly
slave owners who were counting on their slaves' labor.

>> <yawn> You are a lying idiot. Logan's Run has absolutely nothing to
>> say about producers and non-producers.
>
>The movie I saw the 30 year olds were expected to get voluntarily
>atomized so that they did not use up any of the systems resources

No, it was not really explained why the 30-year cut-off was in effect.

>- the
>ones that didn't do it willingly the sandman hunted down and terminated -
>is that not the movie you saw?

Yep. It said _nothing_ about the productive. In fact, it was pretty
plain that _nobody_ was productive: everything was done by machines.

>At the end they found an OLD man - peter
>ustinov - and it made them question if letting people be old and non
>productive was A OK - what did you watch?

??? Ustinov was the one who _had_ to be productive, because he had no
machines to look after him.

>> Lie. It is private property in land that flies in the face of human
>> instincts.
>
>BULL***, you have never studied anthropology.

Yes, I have, and you are just flat wrong.

>Private property became a
>necessity of society's when they began growing into large numbers and the
>division of labor really started to be seperated.

Wrong. Private property in land was a simple and convenient way to
allocate land once agriculture was established, but it was never
necessary, and certainly has nothing to do with human instincts.

>Small societies have
>never nor will ever need private property because division of labor is
>not wide. REad this
>
>Concepts of Ownership
>
>http://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_2.htm

[snip lengthy quotes that prove me right and Johnny wrong]

> There was never any such thing in human societies until a
>> few thousand years ago.
>
>There was never any need until then - if you will study anthropology you
>will learn this.

<yawn> Too bad you never studied English enough to learn that the
quotes you post prove me right and you wrong.

>Societies were not complex or big enough to require
>personal property rights back then

Wrong. They just didn't have private property in _land_.

>- more reading for those that missed
>anthropology in thier economics education:
>
>http://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_2.htm

[snip more lengthy quotes that prove me right and Johnny wrong]

>> Your claim that I do is a lie.
>
>You are an idiot to anthropology - you have not sought out knowledge -
>your theories will NOT work in a huge complex market economy but only
>small scale socieites of old - your ECONOMIC RENT theory may have worked
>200 years ago in small agricultrual communities - IT DOES NOT WORK TODAY
>and WILL NOT WORK in the FUTURE.

<yawn> Too bad you can provide not a fragment of evidence or logic to
support such claims. It's just the howling of a mindless beast.

-- Roy L

Quantcast