Re: Santorum introduces more rent collection opps

On 27 Apr 2005 10:57:32 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>The Trucker wrote:
>
>> > When I say State, I mean specificly an involuntary form of
>monolithic,
>> > top-down governance, that protects the property rights of the
>elite.
>
>> Then you should have no problem with a constitutional
>> representative republic or a constitutional representative
>> democracy.
>
>If such a thing where possible to achieve, perhaps it would OK, but as
>I explained in my response to you in this tread, it is not.

You have _claimed_ it is not, but have offered no proof. And the
evidence of history is that it is, though perhaps not just yet.

>> > Marxist-Leninist, Liberals and Capitalists want a Client/Server
>type
>> > state, involuntary and with centralized authority. Anarchists want
>a
>> > peer to peer social order, an interactive network of syndicates and
>> > communes that all are free to join or leave, and all share equally
>in
>> > the collective Rents and Interests earned by the commune, yet each
>> > privately retains their Wages.
>
>> This is very much like the ideal of communism it seems to me.
>
>Anarchism is non-State communism, they share the ideal of class less
>society where incomes derived from Rent and Interest are the basis of
>mutual wealth, not private privilege.

Allocating the return to applying the fruits of private labor to
production rather than consumption to the private individuals
responsible for doing so is not privilege.

>> >It goes far beyond
>> > authority over land. It certainly does not serve to //mutualize//
>land,
>> > but rather serves to protect private property rights to land.
>
>> Current taxation techniques and land ownership stuff are pretty
>> bad. But that is not an integral part of representative democracy.
>
>They do, however make it impossible for the State to be reformed, as I
>explained. The working classes have no means by which to accumulate the
>wealth needed to compete with the propertied classes for control of the
>State.

And yet, despite your claims of impossibility, there are many
historical cases where positive land reforms have actually been made
by states.

>Ideas about representative democracy alone will not cause the elite to
>voluntarily give up their privilege.

The reality of it can.

>> > This does not mean that one could envision a imaginary "Just"
>State, it
>> > means that the real State is not just, and can not be made just
>because
>> > in the Capitalist mode of production the price of Labour is reduced
>to
>> > its cost (Subsistence) and thus the wage slave has no basis for the
>> > accumulation of wealth needed to influence the State.
>
>> That can be solved by redistribution of land rent.
>
>But this assumes that the State can be reformed to carry out this
>redistribution of land rent, which is a false assumption, as explained
>in the text you quote: "the wage slave has no basis for the
>accumulation of wealth needed to influence the State."

There are other means of influencing the state than wealth, most
obviously voting and education. Just because it isn't easy or
infallible doesn't mean it isn't possible.

>Do you imagine the landlords will voluntarily redistribute the land
>rent?

Do you imagine the landlords enforce their privileges themselves?
They rely on the consent and, yes, the _active_cooperation_ of the
victims of their privilege for its maintenance. Withdraw that consent
and cooperation, and justice becomes achievable.

>> > Therefore while a just state is not impossible, the creation of
>just
>> > state is an economic impossibility.
>
>> The USA started out as a just state.
>
>A "just state" that murdered and robed the Natives, enslaved Africans,
>etc, seems not much to celebrate to me.

The American aboriginals and Africans (who were in effect practising
"anarchists," remember, as they had no private land ownership and no
significant private accumulations of capital), were murdering, robbing
and enslaving each other long before the USA came along.

>But that is beside the point, since you agree it is a fascist state
>now, therefore justice was lost. This proves that it was flawed to
>begin with, and could not protect whatever liberty it provided.

Not, it only proves that it _did_ not, not that it _could_ not.

>What makes you think, even if it could be returned to its previous
>level of liberty, a "just state" would not simply become a fascist
>state once again as wealth and power consolidated?

The fact that history records considerable improvement in the average
justice of states over the centuries. Slave owners did not
voluntarily give up their slaves, yet chattel slavery was nevertheless
abolished.

>> > Also, any form of top-down rule is vulnerable to capture, thus even
>if
>> > it is in the service of justice, it can be captured and turned.
>
>> True enough. "the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance"
>
>And yet, as you believe the USA was "once great," obviously this cost
>is more than the people can afford to maintian.

No, just more than they _chose_ to maintain.

>> > In a peer to peer model, breakdowns are more easily contained, the
>> > other nodes can collectively cause the network to self-heal,
>through
>> > the isolation of damaged nodes.
>
>> There's that "can" thing. I wonder what the motive would be.
>
>Because a bad node, if allowed to remain in the network, would drive
>down the wealth of the others. Thus they would isolate it for self
>defense.

?? But wouldn't working people do the same to secure their rights
against encroachment by the privileges of the elite? And yet, are not
the police officers, etc. who enforce those privileges themselves
working people, and thus the victims? How are the nodes to be made so
much wiser than the individual human beings that comprise them?

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Question about LVT
    ... lending to land buyers and by lending to blood-soaked Third World ... lose their investments for being so evil. ... of wealth which amounts to an expropriation of private property". ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Venture Communism
    ... > system that treats it as if it where Private property will have to ... that land, I am both an owner AND a producer. ... > treats it like mutual property will be more efficient that one that ... A market democracy can ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Santorum introduces more rent collection opps
    ... >You do not need to "buy" an election, however it takes wealth to run a ... >Land can always spend more than labour, ... >You, of all people, know that labour ends up short. ... political power in their own interests, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Santorum introduces more rent collection opps
    ... You do not need to "buy" an election, however it takes wealth to run a ... Land can always spend more than labour, thus land always wins, in fact ... You, of all people, know that labour ends up short. ... interested in making such reforms. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Santorum introduces more rent collection opps
    ... >> evidence of history is that it is, ... Land rent is "only" about 20% of GDP. ... >any means to accumulate the wealth needed to take control away from the ... >Because wage slavery is far more efficient than chattel slavery. ...
    (sci.econ)