Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BillG]

I already did in a past post in this thread...

[<Patrick>]

From the FSP's FAQ:

"Anyone who can agree to the clause in the Statement of Intent which says that you should support the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property. In essence, this includes everyone who wants to cut the size and scope of government by about two-thirds or more. Put in a positive way, most FSP members support policies such as abolition of all income taxes, elimination of regulatory bureaucracies, repeal of most gun control laws, repeal of most drug prohibition laws, complete free trade, decentralization of government, and widescale privatization. People of this disposition may go by many names: "classical liberals" (not the same as modern liberals at all, but followers of Thomas Jefferson and similar thinkers), libertarians, paleoconservatives, constitutionalists, voluntarists, etc., etc."

     Is this the post you mean?

     The FSP is not even a libertarians-only organization. The question of this thread is NOT "should geo-libs be allowed in the FSP?" The question is: "are geo-libs really libertarians?" Two very different things here...

[rdeacon]

Can you all stop picking on Bill G?  This is a guy who is one of the few members actually doing anything for the FSP.  Yes, this thread technically isn't about membership in the FSP, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that its targetting Bill.  We all are aware of Bill's difference in opinion regarding property rights.  Let's not give the guy undue hardship.

[BillG]

I am saying that the geo-lib position on property is closer to that of the classical liberal's as cited by the FSP in reference to Jefferson than that of libertarians (small "l")...

[<Patrick>]

Can you all stop picking on Bill G?  This is a guy who is one of the few members actually doing anything for the FSP.  Yes, this thread technically isn't about membership in the FSP, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that its targetting Bill.  We all are aware of Bill's difference in opinion regarding property rights.  Let's not give the guy undue hardship.

     I started this thread. If I am giving anyone any undue hardship, I apologize. All I wanted to do was have a place to debate. I enjoy debating ideas, that's all.
     We either strengthen our ideas by debating against those who disagree with us, or we correct our own errors. Either way it's a good thing…
     

[<Patrick>]

I am saying that the geo-lib position on property is closer to that of the classical liberal's as cited by the FSP in reference to Jefferson than that of libertarians (small "l")...

     Agreed. Your view is closer. But I don't care about that, all I care about is the content of the view. Is it true or not? What is the evidence, what are the logical arguments, ect. That's what we should be talking about.

[Sc0ttiej]

Bill, Todd-
Let it go.  What's the point?  Let the New Intellectual and Herself waste their time.  You should be judged on the merit of your ideas, not on what you call yourself.  If they feel that the ideas of those calling themselves "geo-libertarians" is somehow detracting from others judgement of their brand of libertarianism, then I'd say they need to work on their arguements a little more than the logo on their t-shirts.  I had a quote from Socrates coming, but it seems to be residing on the tip of my tongue.  It starts out: "Why should we care so much about what others think? ---- "  Maybe someone can fill in the blank for me.

[rdeacon]

NI - I don't want to come down on you either, but Bill's being put through the grinder these days, and this thread was started right on the heels of a lot of geo-lib controversy, so I'm feeling a bit testy.  Sorry to sound harsh, debate is always good for the soul  

Can you all stop picking on Bill G?  This is a guy who is one of the few members actually doing anything for the FSP.  Yes, this thread technically isn't about membership in the FSP, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that its targetting Bill.  We all are aware of Bill's difference in opinion regarding property rights.  Let's not give the guy undue hardship.

     I started this thread. If I am giving anyone any undue hardship, I apologize. All I wanted to do was have a place to debate. I enjoy debating ideas, that's all.
     We either strengthen our ideas by debating against those who disagree with us, or we correct our own errors. Either way it's a good thing…
     

[LeopardPM]

BTW, I don't mind it when Bill calls me an 'Ancapper' (I know its me he is referring to...), tho I am more somewhere inbetween a lib and an AnCap... he doesn't mind my referring to him as a Georgist, refusing to acknowledge that sneaky little 'geo-lib' term which placates the average lib into believing they share views together.

[deleted long rant here]

ok, BillG (or any other Georgist) - question for you:

you have contended that the evil land speculator gets to realize the full profit of the increase in value of his private property - value that was 'created', not by him, but by the community (other humans).... and this justifies your redistribution scheme

Can you give me ONE instance of an 'increase in value' of ANY PROPERTY that IS NOT directly attributable to the 'community' (other humans - more specifically: those other humans who would pay for the property)?  This should be easy for you since you contend that it is ONLY land that gains this 'community' value...

michael

[BillG]

no

[LeopardPM]

no

wow

then why do you keep using that example if it actually applies to the value of everything?  isn't that kind of misleading to those who do not understand where 'value' comes from or just don't think 'deeper'?

[very surprised you said 'no' - and kinda happy too - makes me think you just might be that one freak of nature... the 'rational' Georgist'!!!  LOL]

michael

[BillG]

well maybe I just mis-understood your question...

ask the question again a different way.

[LeopardPM]

LOL! and i thought there was hope....


but ok, I will restate... with your help...

First, name me an example of property (that you say should/could be totally and wholly privately owned by any single individual)

[BillG]

LOL! and i thought there was hope....


but ok, I will restate... with your help...

First, name me an example of property (that you say should/could be totally and wholly privately owned by any single individual)

well that is pretty easy...anything that is produced by human labor of course!

any other trick questions?

[LeopardPM]

ok, anything huh?

so, lets take an automobile then... you agree that this is an example of property (and is different then land)?