Re: interest v. "usury"

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 09/08/04 

Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:07:10 GMT

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:51:04 -0400, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> I agree, there seems to be a deliberate effort to redefine rent so as
>> to obscure the underlying reality of privilege.
>
>Owning land is a privilege?

Private ownership of land is a privilege, because as land can never be
produced by labor, it can never be rightly earned.

>I would say it is a right, particularly if
>one possesses the land, controls the land and can muster physical force
>to defend against any adverse claims.

But such a "right" is founded on nothing but superior force, and
superior force therefore legitimately overturns it. That is not much
of a right.

>Rights come from the barrel of a
>gun and the edge of a sword.

Silliness. It is _violations_ of rights that come therefrom, as
proved by your description, above, of how those who hold land by force
violate the rights of anyone who wants to use the land.

>Might is Right. It has always been thus and it will always be thus until
>the human race mutates into something more reasonable.

More silliness. Why don't you look up "might" and "right" in a good
dictionary, so you can stop making a fool of yourself?

>If you propose that the government be the de facto owner of land and the
>renter to all other users, you have conceded my point.

<yawn> Nope.

>Government is a
>monopoly of force. It is the same whether Mr. Gotrocks possesses the
>land and rents it or the government possesses the land an rents it.

No, because only government can act for the community that gives the
land its rental value. Government as landowner is therefore
inherently fairer and more economically efficient (because it
internalizes externalities) than private landownership.

>It is guns that defend the claim.

?? ROTFL!! Police officers and criminals both use guns to defend
claims. Does that mean they are the same?

How many years did you have to study to get so stupid, Bob?

-- Roy L

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Income from a tax on land.
    ... >>Is the market value of land use privilege not to be separated from the ... Is the market value of the exclusive usage privilege of a plot of land ... How does government know the market value of the exclusive usage ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Santorum introduces more rent collection opps
    ... >mutual wealth, not private privilege. ... Allocating the return to applying the fruits of private labor to ... responsible for doing so is not privilege. ... >>> but rather serves to protect private property rights to land. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Flat tax proposal
    ... Copyright monopolies made him rich. ... >want Roy L? ... >they may have received land under one of the Homestead Acts—government ... order to buy a privilege, that does not legitimize the privilege. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Income from a tax on land.
    ... > That's the measure of the advantage or benefit that government and the ... Is the market value of land use privilege not to be separated from the ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Distribution & Redistribution
    ... So long as my local government recognizes my right to own ... my land, contingent upon me paying my property taxes, then it is of no ... > landowner privilege do not apply equally well to slave owner privilege. ... or possess ones' own territory if you prefer. ...
    (sci.econ)