Re: Distribution & Redistribution

From: William C Colley (chriscoll_at_panola.com)
Date: 12/02/04 

Date: 2 Dec 2004 08:38:35 -0800

Greetings All,

royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<41aee429.13265211@news.telus.net>...
> On 30 Nov 2004 14:40:07 -0800, chriscoll@panola.com (William C Colley)
> wrote:
>
> >royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<41acc64e.9347395@news.telus.net>...
> >> On 30 Nov 2004 06:55:30 -0800, chriscoll@panola.com (William C Colley)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >jmhall@apex.home.net wrote in message news:<m33byt4o3u.fsf@apex.home.net>...
> >> >> Ron Allen <rallen2@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > royls@telus.net wrote:
> >> >> > > Socialists . . . want to socialize privately as
> >> >> > > well as publicly created value.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ron Allen wrote:
> >> >> > > As I understand socialism, it is about socializing
> >> >> > > both collectively made and collectively used goods
> >> >> > > of value, such as capital goods.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > royls@telus.net wrote:
> >> >> > > You do not understand socialism accurately.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ron Allen answers:
> >> >> > Fine. But, I will continue to define and use the
> >> >> > name "socialism" in the way I understand the word.
> >> >> > No one will tell me how I must use or mean a word.
> >> >>
> >> >> Coming from the guy who keeps telling every one that
> >> >> he would actually accept the decisions of the majority
> >> >> if they "democratically" choose capitalsim over
> >> >> whatever it is he's advocating.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for the laugh, I needed it today.
> >> >
> >> >I'm enjoying the debate between Mr. Allan and Mr. Roy myself, over who
> >> >is the better socialist.
> >>
> >> It was over who used the English language more accurately. He lost.
> >> Your statement above shows you are no more skilled at it than he.
> >
> >On the contrary Mr. Roy. I have never questioned Mr. Allen's command
> >of the English language,
>
> Indeed. Your use of it is little if any better, and certainly far
> less honest.
>

It is amusing that you would consider me dishonest Mr. Roy, when I
challenge you to post any lies I have made on usenet.

> >
> >but rather his ability to use it to persuade
> >me as to the honesty of his beliefs. In my rather scant history of
> >direct conversation with him, he seemed to realize that I would not
> >pretend that his statements meant anything other than what they
> >clearly did,
>
> It is mainly clear that his statements are not clear, as his
> idiosyncratic use of "socialism" demonstrates.
>

On this we agree.

> >
> >You, Mr. Roy, actually accuse me of personally attacking you when I
> >have merely asked you questions,
>
> You are a liar.
>

Please tell.

>
> Your claim, above, that I have been either claiming
> or seeming to be a socialist -- let alone a "better socialist" than Mr
> Allen -- is a flat-out lie, as well as a personal attack.
>

I apologize if misinterpreted your defense and definition of socialism
with Mr. Allen as you actually arguing for socialism, it very much
seems that way to me. But if you assert this is untrue then I will
accept you at your word. Perhaps you can explain to me again what is
the difference in how you would establish a national land value tax
on every land owner in the USA and how a socialist woud go about
doing so. Then I won't mistakenly confuse your seeming desire to
confiscate my land and re-allocate it to more productive use as being
what I consider a socialist action, at least on the part of any
government which did so.

> >
> >perhaps leading questions, in an
> >attempt to further understand your belief that I am somehow equal to
> >a slave owner because I own the land I live on,
>
> As expected, you are again simply lying about what I have said.
>

So you are retracting your position that I am a slave owner because I
own my own home and land? Good.

>
> I have never said that owning land is the same as owning slaves. I
> have simply pointed out the _fact_ that your arguments for the
> rightfulness of private landownership are invalid because, like logically
> equivalent arguments advanced for the rightfulness of slavery, they
> beg the question.
>

But in order to assume this "fact" as you assert, again with no other
evidence except your say-so, you must assume that the two parts of
your analogy, owning slaves and owning land, are somehow either
equally valid or equally invalid. Otherwise it does not beg the
question for me to state that individuals can rightly own land. If you
 wish to use the same logic I do to support the first premise, namely
that ownership of land by individuals is morally right, to turn around
and support the second premise, that ownership of people is morally
right then that is your argument to make, not mine. If you wish to use
arguments against owing people to further your position that the first
premise is wrong, it is indeed you who are equating the two premises
Mr. Roy, not I.

>
> IOW, if you don't want to be compared to a slave owner, stop talking
> like one.
>

No, if you want to consider me equivalent to a slave owner because I
say it is morally right for individuals to own land, I can't stop you.
It just makes you look insane to me.

> >
> >and I don't see whythat is wrong.
> >

>
> Correct. You don't see, and you are determined _not_ to see, ever.
>

Because there is nothing to see Mr. Roy, except your transparent
attempt to make me a monster (a slave owner) for arguing that it is
morally right for individuals to own land. I'm willing to let the
public reading our words reach their own conclusions.

> >
> >Given that you cannot name any individual who is
> >enslaved by me, or whos rights I am negating, and given that you
> >respond with hostility and acusations to simple questions, I can be
> >reasonably clear about the honesty of your beliefs Mr. Roy.
>
> Either provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I claim that
> owning land is the same as owning slaves, or admit that you are
> despicable, lying filth.
>

Certainly, just look up.

"IOW, if you don't want to be compared to a slave owner, stop talking
 like one."

You are the one comparing me to a slave owner Mr. Roy, so somehow you
must think think they are the same. Not identical mind you, but
obviously there is something in the two concepts that you feel is the
same. The fact that you continue to deny this is astonishing.

>
> _Now_, lying filth.
>

That would be "Mr. lying filth" to you Mr. Roy. But then you are
discourteous as well as insane.

> >
> >Thus my comment to Mr. Hall about my enjoyment of your and Mr. Allens
> >conversation regarding the right meaning of socialism.
>
> No, lying filth.
>

You must win many arguments in your life with your fine display of
logic and reason Mr. Roy.

>
> That is not what you said. You claimed that I
> claimed to be a better socialist than Mr Allen. That was a lie, and
> you are therefore lying filth.
>

You stated to Mr. Allen "You do not understand socialism accurately.",
thereby establishing that you understand it better than he. I stated
to Mr. Hall "I'm enjoying the debate between Mr. Allan and Mr. Roy
myself, over who is the better socialist.", since it is clear to me
that the "better socialist" in the context of a usenet debate will be
the one who argues the most to define what socialism really is,
especially when they don't simply post dictionary definitions. If you
want to claim you are not a socialist, then I will take you at your
word, but you sure seem to have a vested interest persuading Mr.
Allen, who does call himself a socialist by the way, that he is wrong
about socialism and you are right. That vested interest makes you
sound like a socialist, that and comparing me to being a slave owner
because I argue for the individual right to own property.

> >
> > For what it's
> >worth a google of <socialism definition> reveals
> >
> >http://www.google.com/search?num=25&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&oi=defmore&q=define:SOCIALISM
> >
> ><begin quotes>
> >
> >a theory or system of social organization by which the major means of
> >production and distribution are owned, manages, and controlled by the
> >government, by an association or workers, or the community as a whole
> >www.imuna.org/manual/app_a.html
> >
> >an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by
> >the state
> >www.wwnorton.com/college/econ/stiglitz/glosss.htm
> >
> >An economic and political system in which private property is
> >abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are
> >collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order
> >to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is
> >considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of
> >capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being
> >characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of
> >a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of
> >discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence
> >of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from
> >economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in
> >organizing the process of production. Instead, large-scale government
> >planning is employed to ensure the harmonious operation of the process
> >of production.
> >www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html
> >
> >A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods
> >are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole
> >community.
> >www.northland.cc.az.us/Pos221/resource/definiti.htm
> >
> >A term covering many belief systems that oppose the concentration of
> >wealth and power that is a natural part of capitalism. Whereas
> >capitalists emphasize freedom for the individual to possess private
> >property, socialists emphasize the well-being of the community. They
> >strive to achieve this through many methods, including public
> >ownership, regulation, and state-sponsored social programs. Socialism
> >has taken on many different forms throughout the world, with varying
> >degrees of success. Some socialists favour a gradual move away from
> >unrestricted capitalism and the maintenance of a democratic society;
> >others favour force to overthrow capitalism and distribute wealth.
> >www.heritage.nf.ca/confederation/glossary.html
> >
> >The view that the government should own and control major industries
> >pittsford.monroe.edu/jefferson/calfieri/economics/EcoGlossary.html
> >
> >government ownership of the means of production; leads to economic
> >stagnation due to a lack of competition, innovation and productivity
> >(examples: postal service, transportation, civil courts, education)
> >www.stormy.org/defin.htm
> >
> >system in which the government controls production and distribution of
> >goods and wealth in a country.
> >web.isp.cz/jcrane/Glossary.html
> >
> >(3 syl.). The political and social scheme of Robert Owen, of
> >Montgomeryshire, who in 1816 published a work to show that society was
> >in a wretched condition, and all its institutions and religious
> >systems were based on wrong principles. The prevailing system is
> >competition, but Owen maintained that the proper principle is
> >co-operation; he therefore advocated a community of property and the
> >abolition of degrees of rank. (1771-1858.) The Socialists are called
> >also Owenites (3 syl.). In France the Fourierists and St. Simonians
> >are similar sorts of communists, who receive their designations from
> >Fourier and St. Simon (q.v.).
> >www.bootlegbooks.com/Reference/PhraseAndFable/data/1155.html
> >
> >economic theory or system in which production should be for the public
> >good rather than private profit.
> >www.asset-analysis.com/glossary/glo_045.html
> >
> >n. a political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of
> >the means of production, and collective control of distribution. It
> >advocates use of coercive force by the civil government to attain the
> >"ideal" of economic and social fairness and equality. In practice
> >socialism always leads to an aristocracy which brutally enforces its
> >"ideal" upon the rest of society.
> >www.jeanchretien.net/data/0055.html
> >
> >The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely
> >to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting
> >capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by
> >painting it black.
> >www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/celine/
> >
> >A kind of command economy in which the government owns and operates
> >the main industries, while individuals own and operate less crucial
> >industries.
> >wps.prenhall.com/ca_ph_ebert_busess_3/0,6518,224378-,00.html
> >
> >an economic system in which the people (government) own and operate
> >the principle means of production. This means things such as
> >communications, railroads, steel, oil, and so on
> >instruction.blackhawk.tec.wi.us/ghoffarth/economicsglossary.htm
> >
> >An economic system that stresses the varying degrees of government
> >ownership and redistribution of wealth.
> >schools.cbe.ab.ca/b836/curriculum/social/socialgloss.html
> >
> >an economic system in which the government owns and operates basic
> >industries but individuals own most businesses (See See page 10.)
> >highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070898375/student_view0/chapter1/key_terms__amp__glossary.html
> >
> >     Philosophical approach to government that allows for public
> >ownership of businesses.
> >www.daltonstate.edu/faculty/bguo/p1101/Glossary.htm
> >
> >a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
> >www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
> >
> >an economic system based on state ownership of capital
> >www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
> >
> ></end quotes>
>
> Clearly, there is much imprecise thinking and talking about socialism,
> as well as a certain amount of ideological axe-grinding in the above
> definitions.
>

Indeed.

>
> Anyone can put up a website with a crackpot definition
> of socialism -- or any other word, for that matter.
>

Google does a pretty good job of screening in their searches. Perhaps
you have a definition of socialism you think is better? And a link?

>
> Responsible and credible lexicographers are fortunately more
> fastidious than the likes of you.
>

Put up your own referenced definition or know once again that all you
bring to this discussion is your own limited ideas. You are not a very
challenging oppponent to debate with Mr. Roy.

> >
> >There, choose one or all
>
> Kindly identify _any_one_ of the above definitions that is equivalent
> in content to the positions I have taken, or retract your claim.
>
> >and remind me again how I really don't own
> >the land I live on.
>
> What would happen if you stopped paying the property taxes on that
> land?
>

Depends on my local government of course. Did I ever argue against
paying property taxes Mr. Roy? Did you ever tell us how you would
determine the actual difference in current property taxes and your
preferred land value tax? Did you ever provide us with any external
links to support your arguments except the www.henrygeorge.org one? Do
you just expect everyone to roll over and agree with your absurd
comparison between owing land and owning humans? Hey, maybe you do go
through life thinking this way, what do I know? All I can tell is
what I see you saying in usenet Mr. Roy, and so far what I see is
someone who wants to abolish private land ownership by individuals and
replace it with...?

William C Colley

Quantcast