Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 58 [59]   Go Down

Author Topic: NH vs WY  (Read 154134 times)

johnadams

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Friend of the FSP, Libertarian
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #870 on: September 25, 2003, 11:21:12 pm »

Quote
There ya go.

forgot to mention...I am one of maybe a couple of dozen self-described "Green Party" members in the whole state.

hardly, "inroads" if you ask me...
I hope you will consider leaving that Socialist party and joining the Libertarian Party, Bill.
Logged
"men are born equally free and independent" - John Adams
World's Smallest Political Quiz

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #871 on: September 26, 2003, 09:04:00 am »

Quote
Since only God can tell the "absolute" truth, then Radar must be God (and Zack is his prophet)!

Your premise is false.  God is not the only one who can tell the truth.  In fact I can tell the truth far more than "god" because "god" is a fictional character made up by people who didn't want to feel responsible for their own lives and actions.  They wanted to be able to pass the buck to "god" and say "It's god's will".  

Quote
As a supporter of NH, I send you best wishes Radar, and thanks for all the good work you have done to promote the NH cause with your, ahem, unique posts.

As I've said earlier, your efforts and mine will ensure victory for the west.  Your one of the best people on the anti-New Hampshire side and your efforts are appreciated.  Thanks buddy.


Ayn Rand was talking about you when she mentioned those who wreck the world through compromise.  Luckily people like you are great in numbers but not great people.  Those of us who never compromise our principles and will do what is right without surrendering to that which is wrong will win in the end.


« Last Edit: September 26, 2003, 09:17:27 am by Radar »
Logged
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

--Satchel Paige


Oh yea, and New Hampshire Sucks!  It's the worst choice for a free state because it offers us the worst chance for success.  - Me

BillG

  • Guest
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #872 on: September 26, 2003, 09:24:46 am »

Quote
I hope you will consider leaving that Socialist party and joining the Libertarian Party, Bill.

I can't join the Libertarians because they violate their own motto: "the party of principle". They make no distinction between labor-based property (fruits of one's labor) and title-based property like land (which is created by no one and an equal gift to all) so therefore fundamentally mis-understand classical liberalism theory.

So, yes taxation on labor and legitimately (see below) earned capital (labor-based property) IS theft.

Therefore, collection of rent (as noted by classical liberals) which actually PREVENTS a theft of astronomical proportions (individuals pocketing value created by the community) is just and the basis for TRUE freedom.

So Libs are all wet on privatization of "the commons" and Greens are all wet on "freedom".

They are in alignment on civil liberties issues and foreign policy.

Geo-libertarianism is the bridge to unite the two...
Logged

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #873 on: September 26, 2003, 09:51:54 am »

Quote
can't join the Libertarians because they violate their own motto: "the party of principle". They make no distinction between labor-based property (fruits of one's labor) and title-based property like land (which is created by no one and an equal gift to all) so therefore fundamentally mis-understand classical liberalism theory.

There is no distinction.  Property is property.  You are a closet socialist; more specifically a Georgist.  I've gone around and around with people who share your belief system.  They think land can't be owned but thousands and thousands of years of history disprove that notion and if you don't believe it, come on to my land and see what happens.

Libertarianism IS classical liberalism which never included "common ownership", or a distinction between property which is created by the labor of men and that which is not.

Georgists such as yourself aren't interested in actual freedom since all freedom and all rights are based on the concept of private ownership of property.  Classic liberalism dictates that our property (regardless of how it was created) is an extension of our own bodies.
Logged
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

--Satchel Paige


Oh yea, and New Hampshire Sucks!  It's the worst choice for a free state because it offers us the worst chance for success.  - Me

BillG

  • Guest
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #874 on: September 26, 2003, 10:30:30 am »

Quote
They think land can't be owned but thousands and thousands of years of history disprove that notion and if you don't believe it, come on to my land and see what happens.

Wrong - we do believe land can and should be owned. But ownership creates scarcity condition and is a priviledge granted by the state to denies access to all. The rent that is created under these conditions is formed from positive externalities outside the labor of the owner. Thus, created by the surrounding community as populations rise, public infrastructure investments and as your neighbors improve their properties.

For an individual to pocket this economic scarcity rent is THEFT from those that created it.

Quote
Libertarianism IS classical liberalism which never included "common ownership", or a distinction between property which is created by the labor of men and that which is not.

Wrong again!

see Locke's proviso...who stated (paraphrasing) that land is a unique form of property because no one created it and is the sine qua non of human existence can be owned free and clear only when AS MUCH and AS GOOD free land is available to ALL!

What passes for libertarian views on land today is mostly "Rothbardist" which is logically inconsistent and not historically factual as it relates to classical liberal philosophy.

Quote
Georgists such as yourself aren't interested in actual freedom since all freedom and all rights are based on the concept of private ownership of property

The rent that is collected and pocketed fraudulently by the individual landHOLDER is actually a TAX on the fruits of the renter's labor making the landHOLDER in fact a GOVERNMENT.

The collected rent should go back to those that created it otherwise NO ONE is FREE. I don't care who or how it gets collected but it must go back to the community pro-rata and directly in the form of a citizens dividend. Taxes can then be collected from indiiduals for a minarchist government. The fall back condition is to throw the rent in the sea! We would all be better off...

Quote
Classic liberalism dictates that our property (regardless of how it was created) is an extension of our own bodies.

This is just plain and simply historically wrong!

See the original classical liberals - the French Physiocrats (meaning "nature rule" & originally used the term "laissez faire") ideas around "net product" from land and "impot unique".

excerpt:
"In the interest of economy of administration, therefore, they urged that a single tax be levied upon rent. This was their celebrated impôt unique. The proposal was somewhat similar to the more recent demands of Henry George for a single tax."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12067a.htm
« Last Edit: September 26, 2003, 10:33:12 am by BillG (not Gates) »
Logged

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #875 on: September 26, 2003, 11:02:18 am »

Quote
Wrong - we do believe land can and should be owned. But ownership creates scarcity condition and is a priviledge granted by the state to denies access to all.

This first sentence invalidates your entire philosophy.  The state has no priviledges that the people don't grant it.  And the state may only have those powers that we as individuals have to grant to the state.  Since an individual can't tell another person they may or may not own land, nor can they give that power to government.  

Also if I own something like property, land, etc.  and I choose to rent it out, it is a private financial transaction between me and the seller.  Someone needs shelter, and I am offering it.  They agree to compensate me for that shelter.  They aren't paying for the building, they are paying for my permission to stay in it.  There is no theft involved what-so-ever which makes this statement utterly false:

Quote
For an individual to pocket this economic scarcity rent is THEFT from those that created it.

Quote
see Locke's proviso...who stated (paraphrasing) that land is a unique form of property because no one created it and is the sine qua non of human existence can be owned free and clear only when AS MUCH and AS GOOD free land is available to ALL!

WRONG!  Good, free land is available to all who purchase it.  You are not born with an entitlement to use any land.  But you are born with the ownership of your person and your labor and you may exchange your labor to purchase land.

Quote
What passes for libertarian views on land today is mostly "Rothbardist" which is logically inconsistent and not historically factual as it relates to classical liberal philosophy.

WRONG!  What passes for Libertarian views today are the same views that were called classic liberalism long ago.  What doesn't pass for libertarianism are twisted, misinterpretations of classic liberalism such as Georgism.

Quote
The rent that is collected and pocketed fraudulently by the individual landHOLDER is actually a TAX on the fruits of the renter's labor making the landHOLDER in fact a GOVERNMENT.

WRONG!  The rent that is collected is done so legitimately and earned (yes earned) by the landOWNER.  The landOWNER offers someone shelter in exchange for money earned by the labor of someone else.  They can refuse and go somewhere else or they can work and pay for their own property.  The exchange is totally voluntary and the landOWNER is taking a risk by allowing someone else to use his property, is liable for injuries that occur on his property due to disrepair, etc.  The owner takes the risk and is therefore earning the money he recieves in exchange for the use of his property.

Quote
The collected rent should go back to those that created it otherwise NO ONE is FREE. I don't care who or how it gets collected but it must go back to the community pro-rata and directly in the form of a citizens dividend. Taxes can then be collected from indiiduals for a minarchist government. The fall back condition is to throw the rent in the sea! We would all be better off...

WRONG AGAIN!  Another perfect example of your socialist tendancies.  The rent DOES go to the person who earned it....the landOWNER.  There is no entity known as "the community" that has rights or owns things.  Only individuals have rights, not "communities".  Wealth is good, regardless if it is collected by someone offering to let others use their property in exchange for money, or they are selling goods they built.  In either case the money is earned legitimately and free from cohersion.

Quote
This is just plain and simply historically wrong!

No, it's historically accurate and factual.  It just isn't what you want to hear.  Your attempts to re-write history to your own socialistic point of view are fruitless.  

To call a legitimate landOWNER a thief is ridiculous.  To claim you have the right to use someone else's land is THEFT.

Calling yourself a "Geo-Libertarian Green" is as retarded as those who call themselves "Libertarian Socialists".  You are saying that you are a Georgist-Libertarian-Socialist which is ridiculous.  Libertarianism is on the opposite end of the universe of socialism.  They are diametrically opposed.  Nothing could be more UN-Libertarian than Georgism (the incredibly stupid belief that people who collect rent are thieves), or the Green Party which represents extreme socialism on the fringe of communism.  

According to your beliefs if I carve a baseball bat out of a tree and rent it out to someone that's just fine.  Someone is paying for the use of something I created.  But if I rent out a house that I built myself on land that I legitimately own than I'm a theif.  That is one of the most whacked out, ignorant, things I've ever heard.  

« Last Edit: September 26, 2003, 02:07:37 pm by Radar »
Logged
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

--Satchel Paige


Oh yea, and New Hampshire Sucks!  It's the worst choice for a free state because it offers us the worst chance for success.  - Me

BillG

  • Guest
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #876 on: September 26, 2003, 10:12:41 pm »

Quote
According to your beliefs if I carve a baseball bat out of a tree and rent it out to someone that's just fine.  Someone is paying for the use of something I created.  But if I rent out a house that I built myself on land that I legitimately own than I'm a theif.  That is one of the most whacked out, ignorant, things I've ever heard. 

That is not what I am saying.

If a 5 a.c. parcel of land is purchased that has never had any labor "mixed with it" besides being surveyed, speculated on for 10 years, then sold...what I am saying is that the appreciated value of that piece of land comes from positive externalities that are outside of any labor applied to the land and this is called economic scarcity rent. For an individual to then pocket this money is infact theft because it was created outside the efforts of the landowner.

Quote
Also if I own something like property, land, etc.  and I choose to rent it out, it is a private financial transaction between me and the seller.  Someone needs shelter, and I am offering it.  They agree to compensate me for that shelter.  They aren't paying for the building, they are paying for my permission to stay in it.  There is no theft involved what-so-ever which makes this statement utterly false:

You are completely confusing labor-based property and land-based property. If you don't know the difference you will never be able to articulate a defense.

Quote
Good, free land is available to all who purchase it.  You are not born with an entitlement to use any land.  But you are born with the ownership of your person and your labor and you may exchange your labor to purchase land.

You are completely confusing the equal accessn right to land and "born with an entitlement to use any land". If you don't know the difference you will never be able to articulate a defense.

Quote
What passes for Libertarian views today are the same views that were called classic liberalism long ago.  What doesn't pass for libertarianism are twisted, misinterpretations of classic liberalism such as Georgism.

So where is your link to back this up like I provided? Look up Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice" in google and educate yourself...

a few excerpt:
Liberty and Property are words expressing all those of our possessions which are not of an intellectual nature. There are two kinds of property. Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to us from the Creator of the universe--such as the earth,air, water. Secondly, artificial or acquired property--theinvention of men.
 ****************
In the latter, equality is impossible; for to distribute it equally it would be necessary that all should have contributed in the same proportion, which can never be the case; and this being the case, every individual would hold on to his own property, as his right share. Equality of natural property is the subject of this little essay. Every individual in the world is born therein with legitimate claims on a certain kindof property, or its equivalent.
*******************
But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that parable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.  
*******************
Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue.
*******************
There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made.  
*******************
To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property

Need I go on and embarass you further?
     
http://geolib.pair.com/essays/paine.tom/agjst.html

Quote
The landOWNER offers someone shelter in exchange for money earned by the labor of someone else.  They can refuse and go somewhere else or they can work and pay for their own property.  The exchange is totally voluntary and the landOWNER is taking a risk by allowing someone else to use his property, is liable for injuries that occur on his property due to disrepair, etc.  The owner takes the risk and is therefore earning the money he recieves in exchange for the use of his property.

You are confusing rent in exchange for shelter with economic scarcity rent which's value is created outside the land in question. A Georgist looks at the rent you receive from shelter as legitimate capital accumulation from the fruits of someone's labor (buildings) and in actuality want to encourage this so the owner can thus pay the economic scarcity rent. If you don't know the difference you will never be able to articulate a defense.

Quote
There is no entity known as "the community" that has rights or owns things.

Who "owns" the sky? Who "owns" the public airways? Who "owns" the public roads?

Quote
Libertarianism is on the opposite end of the universe of socialism.  They are diametrically opposed.  Nothing could be more UN-Libertarian than Georgism (the incredibly stupid belief that people who collect rent are thieves), or the Green Party which represents extreme socialism on the fringe of communism. 

So, Mr. Neo-libertarian please explain why Libertarian's and Green's political platforms are in alignment on civil liberties issues like decriminalization of victimless crimes if they are in your words "diametrically opposed"?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 58 [59]   Go Up