Re: Santorum introduces more rent collection opps

On 29 Apr 2005 05:57:10 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>r...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> On 28 Apr 2005 08:02:50 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >Influence on the State is a function of expenditures made to
>influence
>> >it.
>
>> But not just expenditures of money. It would take an immense amount
>> of money to buy an election while lacking a significant amount of
>> volunteer labor.
>
>You do not need to "buy" an election, however it takes wealth to run a
>campaign for election, and in the main, whoever spends more, wins.

That is flat false.

>Land can always spend more than labour,

Another falsehood.

>thus land always wins,

False.

>in fact
>there are virtually no candidates who will even dare run against the
>interests of land owners.

Now that is true.

>And of course, even if you do somehow win, if you go against the
>interest of land owners, since they hold the basis of power, you can
>still wind up dead or deposed.

Also true.

>In the end the economic forces can not be resisted politically.

The economic forces are _created_ politically.

>> >As wealth generated by the economy tends to accrue to the owners of
>> >land, they will be thus be able to control the State.
>
>> Land rent is "only" about 20% of GDP.
>
>So? Add Interest, Capital Gains, returns on Intellectual Property, etc,

Interest does not share common interests with rent.

>to the above and then compare the percentage of GDP of wages after
>their costs of subsistence has been subtracted.

Wages typically account for a little over half of GDP. Subsistence
for all working people would account for less than a quarter of that.

>You, of all people, know that labour ends up short.

Short of justice, but not short of the resources needed for resistance
to injustice.

Do you know how much working people spend on lottery tickets each
year? It's ignorance and stupidity (oh, sure, and laziness,
cowardice, greed and inertia), that keep them from exercising their
political power in their own interests, not lack of money.

>> >As the price of
>> >labour is driven by competition down towards its cost,
>
>> Clearly a blatant falsehood.
>
>Market theory holds that the price of any factor of production is
>always driven towards its cost by competition.

False. Workers' labor is all unique, almost like collectibles. Its
price does not approach cost because the supply of each worker's labor
is only elastic in a certain range. How much would it take to get you
to work 100 hours a week? How long could you keep it up? How about
200 hours a week?

>Land, having a fixed supply, does not compete.

Workers' time is also in fixed supply, and does not compete outside
the range of feasible work hours.

>> >they do not have
>> >any means to accumulate the wealth needed to take control away from
>the
>> >owners of land.
>
>> Then how did Hugo Chavez come to power in Venezuela?
>
>I am amused that you present an example who, for making some
>reformations against property, while at the same upholding the general
>rights of property, has still faced numerous, seemingly relentless,
>attempts at deposal, including an outright coup. Who is constantly
>being attacked in his local, and the international media as being a
>ruthless, authoritarian military dictator, which he is clearly not, and
>has even faced a massive general strike/lockout organized by Property
>united with that supposed defender of labour, the liberal afl-cio!
>
>If this doesn't demonstrate the hostility with which Property will
>defend its interest, and that it has the means to dupe liberals as
>well, then I don't know what will convince you.

All true, of course. But he is still there. So your claim of
impossibility is clearly and irrefutably falsified.

>And the fact remains, that if it were not for the support of the
>military, who turned against the coup organizers after Chavez was
>already arrested, Chavez would have been as gone as Mossadeq. Or dead
>like Allende, a remaining prospect that Chavez himself discusses
>frequently.
>
>One also wonders if Chavez is a beneficiary of the USA being bogged
>down in Iraq, and the related loss of Spanish support for Uribe.

Quite likely.

>And once again, the existence of anomalies like Chavez does not change
>the fact that the the general global trend is the increasing wealth of
>Property relative to Labour,

A trend is not a certainty. And it is not helpful to conflate
legitimate and illegitimate ownership under "property." If you mean
privilege, say privilege. You would be clearer, and people would not
instantly dismiss you as a nitwit communist.

>In anycase, By all means, go Chavez! I agree he is the most noteworthy
>head of State in the world today. However the prosect of a Hugo Chavez
>in America or any major Capitalist nation seems bleak, and the
>prospects of such a political figure going beyond Chavez, and making
>the sorts of reforms you and Trucker support (and in principal, me too)
>is flat out impossible without a prior change in the mode of
>production.

That is your opinion. And IMO the change you advocate is much less
possible than political change.

>> >And history is on my side here, that you can find certain atypical
>> >examples and occurrences does not change the fact that by and large
>the
>> >increase in the share if the economy that accrues to property and
>the
>> >decrease of that which accrues to labour continues relentlessly.
>>
>> No, it is subject to periodic reversals.
>
>If you have some examples of these reversals, where the interests of
>property where achieved by political, and not military or industrial
>means, I would be happy to hear them, I always appreciate the
>historical facts you present.

The English income tax of the early 19th C was a clear loss for
property, and was achieved through entirely political means.

>However, you will be unable to find evidence of general trend of
>reversal by political means, because it is impossible.

I agree the current historical trend is toward privilege. But the Net
is only a few decades old, and the great majority of users have been
using it for less than one decade. That is a blink in history, and
already the cracks are showing in the castle of landowner privilege.

>> >I agree with this. Interest is meant here in the classic sense,
>Capital
>> >Yield. Not interest in the return on investment of abstained
>> >consumption sense, which I support.
>
>> ?? But how are these fundamentally different? Abstaining from
>> consumption directs labor to production of capital rather than
>> consumption goods, and the yield of the resulting capital is the
>> reward for doing so.
>
>Yet the yield that comes from its use is easily distinguished from the
>profit that comes from its sale.

Of course, use also yields wages of superintendence, and a sale shifts
the burden of risk.

>> >Yet the overall trend is the concentration of wealth and expansion
>of
>> >the rights property, thus supporting my impossibility theory.
>
>> The fact that it is only an overall trend and not a monotonic
>> certainty refutes your impossibility claim.
>
>No, it does not, because any anomalies which fall short of complete
>global reversal can only be temporary and will eventually be
>retrenched, by the economic forces described.

This is the sort of orotund claim of historical inevitability in the
absence of plausible evidence that rightly makes Marx a laughing stock
today.

>> >via the State are
>> >dwarfed by the losses and retrenchments.
>>
>> Nope. There is a current propertarian swing in progress, but it
>> follows an era of gains for labor that began in the 1930s and
>> continued through the 60s.
>
>I am currently looking in to these eras. First, they mostly achieved a
>change in the structure, not level of wages as argued by Daniel Bell in
>his study "The Subversion of Collective Bargaining;" whatever gains
>were made in overall wages were mostly lost in overall prices.

That is almost inevitable, given the confounding variable of
inflation.

>Second,
>the fact that even the marginal gains where eventually retrenched and
>the general downward trend continued, just further proves my point.

No, it doesn't, any more than a warm decade proves the global warming
thesis.

>> >Voting requires candidates and parties to vote for, and the mass
>> >support to give them a chance at election. None of this can be
>> >accomplished without wealth, and neither can education.
>
>> It doesn't take all that much wealth.
>
>It takes more wealth than the opposition can spend, no less.

Garbage. How much do working people spend on lottery tickets?
Cosmetics? Cigarettes, alcohol, illegal drugs, pet food, pornography,
prostitutes, video games, professional sports, junk food, popular
"music," movies, etc., etc.? The sum is orders of magnitude more than
it would take to liberate them by political means.

>> But it does take education.
>> And the Net is providing the means for that.
>
>Really? Where do you see the effect of this education, the public seems
>as reactionary and clueless as ever to me.

The advocates of justice are growing in number all the time. The
Green Party has LVT in its platform, and is electing members to the
European Parliament. Anyone interested enough in economics to
investigate this ng is going to see that all the arguments he might
have offered against LVT have already been refuted. Economics-related
blogs and websites often have people making the case for LVT, and just
as importantly, showing the spuriousness and dishonesty of the other
side's arguments.

>> >True, but the hard economics of it do mean that it is impossible.
>
>> Claim without proof.
>
>The logical proof has been given.

And refuted.

>Reform can not be achieved so long as the mode of production
>that funds its reform makes the greater amount of wealth available to
>oppose the reform.

Of course it can. Wealth does not make the decision. People do.

>> >Yes, by using their wealth to ensure its enforcement.
>
>> What do they do, throw dollars at squatters?
>
>No, they throw armed guards. Private or provided by their joint
>apparatus, the State. Often both.

And the armed guards are working people. All they need is education.

>> >And they have developed a highly sophisticated control mechanism
>that
>> >delivers the consent of these victims, it is called the State.
>
>> No, a certain _kind_ of state does so, and even then it only works on
>> those who do not understand it.
>
>Understanding is a privilege only available to a few.

If that is the case, then your proposed method of resistance is also
doomed to failure.

>> To claim that a state like China (let
>> alone Cuba or North Korea) is in the service of landowners or
>> "property" is just silly.
>
>Not as silly as any claim that any of those was brought about by
>electoral activity, and not military activity. Are are you and Trucker
>now propsing a military overthrow of the State?

Not yet. But those who attempt to maintain their unjust privileges by
force are rightly responded to in kind.

>I have never denied
>that is possible, unlikely given the military power of State, but
>possible, given the sheer numbers of the people. However, once the
>State has been captured by force, the new elite is the military elite,
>and the worker has as little leverage as ever.

We have seen in the collapse of the Soviet Union that the loyalties of
the military are not always engaged by their nominal command
structure.

>As in China, Cuba or Korea, there is also an elite, based in different
>factors than the elite where there is a capitalist mode of production,
>but not any less of a threat to true freedom.

Oh, I certainly agree with that. But it shows your notion of a
uniform and monolithic state in the service of property is just flat
wrong.

>> >I agree, however "Withdrawing consent" does not mean to hope and
>pray
>> >for a altruistic party and candidate to overcome the daunting
>economic
>> >obstacles and deliver justice via a reformed state and in the
>meantime
>> >allow Rent to continue to collect in the pockets of land owners, to
>be
>> >spend on keeping the state from being reformed.
>
>> Strawman. Education and political work (and the Greens are clearly
>> making headway in Europe) are not "hoping and praying."
>
>They are making headway in Europe by serving the interests of Property,
>as I am witnessing first hand.
>
>AFAIK, The SPD-Green coalition has retained power by bringing about the
>largest social retrenchments, privatisations and giveaways of public
>wealth in the history of the modern German state.

No, the privatization of publicly held eastern German land on
reunification was the biggest, by far.

>And, of course, the Greens support the private ownership of land, there
>has been limited talk of a "green shift" in taxation, but that is
>marginal, and in my experience flat out Georgist reasoning will be as
>hotly contested by most Greens as it is by most Democrats.

Maybe. But of course the Greens are not the same in every
jurisdiction.

>> >"Withdrawing consent" means forming industrial organisations with
>> >ownership models that embody our ideas of justice from the start,
>and
>> >expend whatever resources we can muster on acquiring land and
>capital
>> >for these organisations to build their basis of power.
>
>> No, that's just what _you_ claim it means.
>
>And what is your opposition to it?

I don't oppose it. More power to you. I just don't think it will
work. And more especially, I don't think it is helpful, true or
justifiable to claim that no other route is possible.

>> >Two wrongs do not make a right, this still disproves the notion that
>> >the USA was a "just state."
>
>> It was certainly more just than what went before.
>
>That is not clear to me, as unjust a society as the Natives may have
>had, it is very hard to argue that it became more just for them after
>the formation of the USA.

They were not the only people involved.

>> >And as I have said, this is not Anarchism, which is specificly
>against
>> >"murdering, robbing and enslaving."
>
>> Claiming to be "against" something while opposing the only known
>> effective means of preventing it is not very persuasive.
>
>Each one of us is capable of self-defense,

Only to a very limited extent.

>and thus we can form
>collective organisations for our mutual self-defense, and form
>alliances of these collective organisations.

Like the 13 colonies did....?

>It is incorrect that only
>the State can put an end to "murdering, robbing and enslaving" and
>completely ignores the fact that much "murdering, robbing and
>enslaving" is conducted by the State.

By _some_ states.

>> >I have no clue why you feel the need to continue with this
>> >equivocation.
>
>> Cast out first the beam that is in thine own eye.
>
>I am not using any equivocation,

Then how is it that you use words like property, anarchism, etc. in
ways that need to be explained, because they do not match dictionary
definitions?

>I often endorse many of the arguments
>you make, and whatever disputes I have are presented logically, not by
>making references to popular misrepresentations of your beliefs,
>instead of your beliefs as you state them.

Thank you. I am trying to do likewise for you, but your idiosyncratic
use of terms makes it hard.

>> >Only as far as these improvements were also in the interests of
>> >Property.
>
>> No. Property was the clear loser in the English income tax of the
>> early 19th C, the Meiji-era tax reforms in Japan, etc.
>
>How is a tax on Income a loss to Property??

The tax fell almost entirely on unearned income from property,
especially land. At that time, the word, "income" meant unearned
income. Earned income was called "wages."

>And in anycase, has the share of the economy given to Property fallen
>since then?

Sometimes. It is clear that the British landed class has become less
dominant and lost much of its privilege since the early 19th C.

>And I know nothing about Meiji-era Japan, but given that it was ruled
>by an Emperor makes in unlikely this was the result of electoral
>activity.

It was an infant consitutional monarchy at the time.

>And in anycase, like England, the share of the economy
>commanded by Property in Japan has not fallen.

Not recently. But it did happen, and more than once.

>> >Because wage slavery is far more efficient than chattel slavery.
>
>> Wage slavery is an oxymoron.
>
>I disagree, it has clear meaning when labour lacks the leverage to earn
>its fair value as its price,

"Leverage"?

>which is the case as long as land is
>privately held.

Nope.

>> and it is clear that abolition of chattel
>> slavery greatly improved the conditions of working people generally,
>> not just the slaves.
>
>Yes, including Property owners, which no longer had to bear the expense
>of acquiring and keeping slaves, but could simply buy labour at its
>cost; subsistence.

Where in the advanced industrialized countries is the cost of most
labor mere subsistence?

>> >Who chose? Property chose. Labour never had a choice.
>
>> Nonsense.
>
>Only if by "nonsense," you mean that it is so irrefutable you wont even
>hazard an attempt.

It should be obvious that labor had a choice. What forces working
people to buy lottery tickets instead of donating the money to a
political party that reflects their interests (and would certainly pay
them back more than the lotteries do)?

>If labour did choose, please explain why it chose against its
>interests, and how property had no hand in it.

It was not aware of where its interests lay. I don't claim the
privileged had no hand in it, but their wealth is not omnipotent.

>> >I hope so, but before resistance is possible they must first acquire
>> >the basis of power to resist,
>
>> But before they can acquire the basis of power, they must first
>> understand the issue.
>
>No, they merely need to have the opportunity to join orgnizations that
>give them a better deal; wages plus equity instead of wages alone.

Heh. Buying land for their own profit gives them that....

>Only those that found the organisations need to understand the issues
>in detail. The economic logic will fuel the growth because it is sound,
>not because it is understood.

Well, go for it, with my best wishes. But I personally don't think
you will succeed, because you don't understand the return to capital.

>> But if they understand the issue, they can
>> always just _vote_ their interests.
>
>Not when they have no candidates to vote for.

What stops them from running themselves?

>Who did you vote for in the last election?

Don't get me started...

>Did anybody run on the
>Single Tax platform? If no one runs, or whoever runs lacks mass
>support, how can they "_vote_ their interests?"

They can vote for whoever is closest. They just don't.

>> >By removing the coercion of Property, and achieving freedom,
>>
>> Where has abolition of property ever been accompanied by freedom?
>
>The income derived from property, land and capital yield, is what is
>used to subjugate others, its removal is therefore a prerequisite to
>freedom.

Nonsense. It is force that is used to subjugate others, not income.

>However, //it's abolition alone// does not guarantee freedom, this can
>only be accomplished by the existence of organisations to defend
>freedom.

"... to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

>> >not directed by force, for the interests of Property.
>
>> You are still saying "property" when you seem to mean "privilege."
>
>Sorry, I was still using Anarchist terms, because I am trying to
>demonstrate their usage in context. As I said I'm not hung up on the
>terms.

I am. Subversion of the terms is how Marxists and the privileged they
claim to oppose both end up on the side of evil.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: The Trucker and The State
    ... >> double by the owners of land. ... Yet all wealth must come from productivity, if the product of labour is ... You can not change the balance of power politically, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Distribution & Redistribution
    ... >> The child had privilege all his life while the parent was alive. ... >> for the offspring to also inherit the parent's land claim. ... If more people amass their wealth in the family ... Wealth confers power regardless of how that wealth is obtained. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments.
    ... > labour contribution, so when you have made sufficient labour ... > labour to be found than surplus wealth. ... that the land is a joint stock for all men ... >> capitalism? ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists
    ... Wealth is the power to forego or to command labor. ... >service is not domestic servant labor. ... increasing concentrations of wealth and land ownership; ...
    (sci.econ)