Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!

From: Don Galt (DonGalt_at_atlantis.colorado.taggart)
Date: 10/30/04

  • Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: How Voters Can Regain Control of Congress" 
    Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:01:00 -0700

    royls@telus.net wrote:
    > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:40:36 -0700, Don Galt
    > <DonGalt@atlantis.colorado.taggart> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>royls@telus.net wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:18:14 -0700, Don Galt
    >>><DonGalt@atlantis.colorado.taggart> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>royls@telus.net wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>Yet that is exactly what the landowner demands of his tenant.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Absolutely false.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>No, it is of course absolutely true.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>The tenant chooses to live there-- he is not forced to.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>He is forced to either live _somewhere_, or die. If he does not own
    >>>>>land, his alternatives are to either pay rent or pick out an urn (he
    >>>>>will not have the alternative of burial, as that requires land).
    >>>>
    >>>>This does not mean his rights have been violated--
    >>>
    >>>Yes, it just flat-out _does_. It is clear and indisputable that each
    >>>landowner who prevents him from using the natural resources that no
    >>>one produced denies him his right of liberty. But what right do they
    >>>claim the right to use the land, but deny him the same right?
    >>
    >>Its their land.
    >
    >
    > <sigh> "They're my slaves." Sound familiar?

    Yes, you are always claiming slavery when you cannot respond to an argument.

    >
    > You are claiming that the justification for private property in land
    > is that land is private property.

    That is not what I claimed.

    > Your statement is not an argument,
    > but merely a circular attempt to evade the fact that you have no
    > argument.

    which is why its a typical strawman for you to put forth.

    >
    >
    >>Unfortunately, you do not believe in human rights.
    >
    >
    > I see. It is OK for you to lie about my views, but not OK for me to
    > identify your lies.
    >
    > Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...
    >
    >
    >>>>he can rent for
    >>>>awhile, work to save money, and buy his own land.
    >>>
    >>>Any victim of crime can do such things to mitigate his losses -- or
    >>>even become a criminal himself. That is of course completely
    >>>irrelevant to the fact of the crime committed against him.
    >>
    >>No crime was committed.
    >
    >
    > I have already identified the crime: denying others the right to use
    > what nature provided for all, while claiming it for oneself.
    >
    >
    >>>>This is what people
    >>>>do all the time.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Just as slaves worked and saved to buy their freedom. The fact that a
    >>>systematic injustice is accepted does not justify it.
    >>
    >>There is no systematic injustice.
    >
    >
    > I have already shown that there is. Your unsupported claim does
    > nothing to rescue your argument that people's ability to adapt to
    > injustice proves that there is no injustice.
    >
    >
    >>>>It doesn't mean he's enslaved to land owners.
    >>>
    >>>Yes, effectively, it does.
    >>
    >>Only because you need to make such a silly statement stick so you can
    >>justify stealing property.
    >
    >
    > He either pays rent or dies. How is that different from slavery? And
    > you cannot support a claim that property in land is rightful by
    > pointing out that land is property.
    >
    >
    >>>>You are just singing the tired old communist song about how you're so
    >>>>oppressed by people who own property.
    >>>
    >>>That is a lie. I have been very clear on the difference between the
    >>>products of labor, which are rightly the property of their producers,
    >>>and land, which is not produced by labor and therefore can never have
    >>>rightly become anyone's property.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>(And calling me names doesn't count) to get a
    >>>>response from me.
    >>>
    >>>I don't need or want any more responses from you. I have already
    >>>demolished you.
    >>
    >>By making idiotic statements that you can't and won't support?
    >
    >
    > ?? This, from the guy who claimed that land is produced by labor, and
    > then ran away like a little girl when he was called on it?? ROTFL!!!
    >
    >
    >>You're a fool.
    >
    >
    > I have supported everything I have said with facts and logic.
    > Conspicuously unlike you.
    >
    >
    >>The whole purpose you have here is to try and claim that property is
    >>theft--
    >
    >
    > That is the same lie you told before, and got in such a huff when I
    > identified you as a liar for telling it. In fact, as you know, I have
    > been very clear on what kind of property is rightful. Look up about
    > 25 lines. Yep. There it is.
    >
    > Liar.
    >
    >
    >>a contradiction in terms in itself.
    >
    >
    > This, from the guy who claimed that clearing trees from land creates,
    > ex nihilo, the very land the trees were cleared from?? ROTFL!!
    >
    >
    >>And to thus justify the
    >>stealing of other people's property that you want to engage in.
    >
    >
    > Let's see, now. The tenant is producing goods or services of value to
    > others, but he has to give some of that production to the landowner in
    > return for access to the services and infrastructure government
    > provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and
    > the resources nature provides, all of would have been there, just the
    > same, even had the landowner never existed. The landowner is doing
    > nothing; conspicuous by its absence from the list of things the tenant
    > pays for is anything whatever that the _landowner_ provides. It is
    > therefore the _landower_ who pockets the value produced by others, in
    > return for no contribution whatever from himself.
    >
    > And you claim _I_ am the one trying to justify the stealing of other
    > people's property??
    >
    >
    >>In other words, you're a wannabe criminal.
    >
    >
    > <yawn> A statement that doesn't have a lot of weight, coming from a
    > proved-to-be liar.
    >
    >
    >>And thats why you get so
    >>angry-- I have named exactly that which you are trying to hide from
    >>yourself.
    >
    >
    > <yawn> Mirror time. Again.
    >
    > -- Roy L

  • Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: How Voters Can Regain Control of Congress"
    • Quantcast