Re: Distribution & Redistribution
From: William C Colley (chriscoll_at_panola.com)
Date: 11/24/04
- Next message: Paul Hovnanian P.E.: "Re: Bush shot down on illegal-immigrant-coddling bill."
- Previous message: Asa Cannell: "credit cards and the gold-backed currency"
- In reply to: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Nov 2004 22:25:13 -0800
Greetings All,
royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<41a3a849.18202796@news.telus.net>...
> On 19 Nov 2004 06:57:39 -0800, chriscoll@panola.com (William C Colley)
> wrote:
>
> >royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<419d14b5.18444089@news.telus.net>...
> >> On 16 Nov 2004 11:11:23 -0800, chriscoll@panola.com (William C Colley)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Greetings All,
> >> >
> >> >royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4199442d.25262285@news.telus.net>...
> >> >> On 15 Nov 2004 07:04:20 -0800, chriscoll@panola.com (William C Colley)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I am explicitly talking about creating land,
> >> >> >or a usable biosphere if you will, from currently inert and
> >> >> >uninhabited planets, so your Netherlands footnote is quite pertinent.
> >> >>
> >> >> Land is not a product of labor.
> >> >
> >> >I do not dispute that matter and energy exist independently of humans,
> >> >but really all "land" is is habitable biosphere,
> >>
> >> Not in economics.
> >
> >You are self-limiting in your imagination Mr. Roy. Others are not.
>
> It's nothing to do with imagination. It's about accurate
> communication.
>
So you do not dispute that humans can create and legitimately own
habitable biosphere if they are capable of doing so?
> >> >and given enough
> >> >matter and energy PLUS labor, we can create all the land we need.
> >>
> >> Not in the economic sense. We can't create any.
> >
> >We do so by simply existing Mr. Roy.
>
> Nope. Wrong.
>
I see I did mispeak above. We obviously do not create land by simply
existing, we create value.
> >
> > Without us there is no economic sense.
>
> <sigh> Without us, there is no zodiac. That doesn't mean we created
> the stars that comprise it.
>
Your pretense at boredom notwithstanding, humans do create the
entirity of astrology from their own observations and interpretations
of stars. Doesn't mean astrology accurately predicts the future, but
without humans there is no economics just as without humans there is
no astrology.
> >> >Any land with value to humans is a product of human labor,
> >>
> >> That is false.
> >
> >"even if only the mentation required to know of the existance of said
> >land andto desire it and to physically bring the human to it."
> >
> >Deny to us again how creativity and imagination are not products of
> >human labor Mr. Roy?
>
> Creativity and imagination are not land.
>
Never said they were, but creativity and imagination are required to
give value to land.
>
> You seem very determined not to permit yourself any accurate communication
> or clear thought on this subject.
>
No, but I am very determined no to permit you to simply insist that
individual land ownership is somehow wrong because you say so. If I am
unclear about this then I apologize.
> >> >even if
> >> >only the mentation required to know of the existance of said land and
> >> >to desire it and to physically bring the human to it.
> >>
> >> Changing one's attitude to land is not _producing_ that land.
> >
> >Existing and having an attitude is what gives value to anything,
> >including land.
>
> The land and its value are not at all the same thing.
>
Independent of any humans what is valuable about land Mr. Roy?
>
> The value of land is indeed created by human labor.
>
And for some land, like the moon, value is created simply by the
desire to own it.
>
> Just not the owner's.
>
Why is it not possible for an owner to add value to land Mr. Roy?
> >> >You might as well say land does not exist without both the humans
> >> >and their labor.
> >>
> >> I could, if I wanted to be no more accurate than you.
> >
> >It is not inaccurate to state that in the absence of humans land value
> >does not exist.
>
> Right. It is just completely different from your false statement
> above.
>
Explain to us how, in the absence of any humans, land existance is of
any value whatsoever.
> >> >Sure there is plenty of land on the Moon, but without human labor the
> >> >land is useless.
> >>
> >> Human labor often makes land more useful. This is called
> >> "improvement." But it does not _create_ the land.
> >
> >I have explicitly stated that matter and energy already exist. Given
> >matter, energy, and technology humans can create land Mr. Roy, that's
> >the point I'm trying to explain.
>
> But not land in the economic sense. That's the point _I'm_ trying to
> explain.
>
So when and if humans colonize the Moon or Mars then they can have
your permission to actually own the land they are on?
> >
> >Land is not the source of value, the
> >human mind is.
>
> We are talking about two separate issues: the source of the land,
> which is not human labor, and the source of its value, which is.
> Please try to keep these two separate issues separate rather than
> constantly trying to confound them.
>
In the absence of humans what difference does it make whether or not
land or anything else exists?
> >> >> >I personally own property, and wish to buy more in the future, including
> >> >> >unimproved land. In the absence of a county sherrifs department and
> >> >> >State police force I would have to pay far more to gain the same level
> >> >> >of security I currently enjoy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Careful. Lots of people here refuse to know that.
> >> >
> >> >It is self-obvious. Property taxes are a form of protection money,
> >> >indeed all taxes are protection money paid to keep the government from
> >> >doing individuals harm.
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> I have explained on a number of occasions that there is a
> >> fundamental difference between government and a protection racket. A
> >> protection racket involves only two parties: extortionist and victim.
> >> Government involves three parties: potential extortionists (and other
> >> criminals), potential victims, and the government that defends the
> >> latter against the former. Learn this, or condemn yourself to talk
> >> nonsense on the subject, forever.
> >
> >You make a fundamental mistake in your description Mr. Roy.
>
> No, in fact my description was entirely accurate.
>
See below.
> >
> >There is
> >nothing that prevents a protection "racket" from involving more than
> >two parties.
>
> True.
>
Then there is not a "fundamental difference between government and a
protection racket" as you just described them above.
>
> But its essential nature only requires two.
>
In the presence of multiple parties relationships other than
"extortionist and victim" are possible, and your argument fails.
>
> To pretend there
> is no difference between a protection racket and a security provider
> is a common pretense among anarcho-liars and anarcho-fools, but their
> error is not one I share.
>
Then you can describe this difference so we can all understand it
right Mr.Roy? Strange but I haven't seen link nor reference one yet in
all your responses to me. Like this:
from http://www.libertocracy.com/Treaties/G-1L-IGT-government/community_security.htm
<begin quote>
When people surrender that responsibility to the state, the political
rulers hire their thugs to enforce their will on the people, the state
does not defend your rights, their police and military are at war
against your freedom and they will continue to rob and enslave people
as long as people continue to collaborate with them in usurping the
authority of government from sovereign individuals.
</end quote>
Interesting, someone other than me who seems to think that "all taxes
are protection money paid to keep the government from doing
individuals harm", someone I never heard of before a cursory google
search. Why can't you provide any external support for your positions
Mr. Roy? Do you really think repeating your own claims over and over
is in anyway persuasive?
> >
> >The fact that you can't imagine scenarios in which
> >protection rackets do is not a constraint I share.
>
> More accurately, using words according to their definitions is not a
> constraint you share. This practise is technically known as "lying."
>
Yes you seem to be capable of doing this when it suits you Mr. Roy.
Please demonstrate what words I've lied to us here in usenet about.
> >Learn this or
> >condem yourself to talking nonsense Mr. Roy.
>
> <yawn> I think readers can judge which of us is careful to use words
> clearly and accurately and which is constantly trying to play it
> deuces wild.
>
Again with the pretend boredom. A recurring rhetorical device of yours
used to imply you are somehow better than those you converse with? Or
just me perhaps? Wake up Mr. Roy, the world is reading our words and
they will judge what we say.
> >> >But if the government will use force to get money
> >> >I otherwise wouldn't give it, that's a tax.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily. Confiscation of stolen money is not a tax. Fines
> >> are not taxes.
> >
> >I guess you will have to take me at my word when I state that I have
> >neither stolen anyones' money nor been convicted of any criminal
> >violations which would require me to pay a fine. I realize I do not
> >offer any evidence of this, but I cannot dispute that I agree that
> >government using force to confiscate stolen money or collect a
> >criminal fine are ways it has to legitimately obtain money that do not
> >involve taxation.
>
> Fine. But then you turn right around and offer this epitemological
> mess:
>
May I assume you meant to say "epistemological" here and not
"epitemological"? Or would that simply epitomize the errors you make
in debating me?
> >So I can repeat my original statement, "if the government will use
> >force to get money I otherwise wouldn't give it, that's a tax." and
> >declare it true, although I do not choose to proove to you it is true.
> >But if you think I am a criminal then I would of course have to take
> >into account as I respond to you.
>
> Clearly, you will say anything rather than agree to use words clearly
> and accurately.
>
Which words of mine are unclear to you Mr. Roy?
> >> >> >The idea of taxing land ownership is at least less offensive to me
> >> >> >than most other types of taxes, although I could see only requiring
> >> >> >payment of these taxes upon transfer of land title from one individual
> >> >> >to another.
> >> >>
> >> >> That just freezes the land.
> >> >
> >> >So long as only indviduals can legally own the titles then average
> >> >human lifespan will set a lower bound on property turnover and tax
> >> >collection.
> >>
> >> Having very low lower bounds on benefits is not beneficial.
> >
> >Perhaps not to you eh Mr. Roy?
>
> Nor to the great majority of people who would not be beneficiaries
> under your proposal.
>
Evidence please?
> >Whose land do you want?
>
> Unlike you, I am not of the belief that any degree of injustice is
> acceptable as long as I am its beneficiary rather than its victim.
>
So you just want everyone to relinquish their land to...?
Wiliam C Colley
- Next message: Paul Hovnanian P.E.: "Re: Bush shot down on illegal-immigrant-coddling bill."
- Previous message: Asa Cannell: "credit cards and the gold-backed currency"
- In reply to: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
