The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Georgism (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=4043)

Radar 09-29-2003 11:21 AM

Georgism
 
I've invited someone from another board to come in here to discuss Georgism.

They label themselves as a follower of "classic liberalism" and claim Georgism supports their beliefs. Of course they are full of crap.

For those of you who don't know, Georgists stupidly try to draw an imaginary line of separation between property that is created by the labor of people and that which isn't. They think legitimate land OWNERS who enjoy increased property value due to changes in their area or who speculate and invest in property are thieves and they should give their profits to some imaginary entity known as "the community" as though a "community" had rights, and those rights were above those of individuals.

The simple and undeniable truth is that classic liberalism (libertarianism) holds property ownership (regardless of how the property was created) as the most sacred of all rights because property ownership is where our rights stem from.

Georgism is nothing more than socialism which means it's the exact opposite of libertarianism and therefore the exact opposite of freedom itself.

dave 09-29-2003 12:00 PM

Radar!

While you're here... your thoughts on the CA recall? Maybe start a new thread about it?

Radar 09-29-2003 12:49 PM

Quote:

While you're here... your thoughts on the CA recall?
I'm for it.

juju 09-29-2003 12:51 PM

Well, if they do come, I look forward to an unbiased description. It does seem interesting.

Radar 09-29-2003 12:59 PM

They want to duke it out on another forum. I invited them here. But if they come, their opinion will hardly be unbiased as a follower of that philosophy.

This idiot calls himself a geo-libertarian-green. That's as stupid as the retards who call themselves libertarian-socialists. Libertarianism and socialism are exact opposites.

He can call himself a purpleheaded pud pounder for all I care. The facts speak for themselves and there is no distinction between owning property created by nature and property created by the labor of mankind. This is true in all forms of libertarianism including "classic liberalism"

Undertoad 09-29-2003 01:26 PM

Are you gonna vote for that Ned Roscoe?

juju 09-29-2003 01:32 PM

Why is it that, when describing something strange and foreign, people often prefix it with the word 'that'?

Torrere 09-29-2003 01:56 PM

The community has no rights?

Do you support any form of social organization?

AdanSmith 09-29-2003 02:23 PM

Quote:

The facts speak for themselves and there is no distinction between owning property created by nature and property created by the labor of mankind. This is true in all forms of libertarianism including "classic liberalism"
"Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry....Ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them." -- Adam Smith

Radar 09-29-2003 04:03 PM

Quote:

Are you gonna vote for that Ned Roscoe?
Yes.

Quote:

Do you support any form of social organization?
Sure, it's nice to see clubs, bowling leagues, etc. But a group of individuals has no more rights than a single individual whether they call themselves a club, a town, a city, a county, a state, or a federal government.

Torrere 09-29-2003 05:00 PM

One way to look at it might be as a group of people pooling a portion of their rights. It is difficult to wrap your mind around the rights of all of the people in, say, the Ravenna District. It is easier to perceive all of their rights as a conglomeration: the rights of the Ravenna District. In this way, their rights together appear almost as large as they ought to, and hence are more difficult to trample.

If you say: the Ravenna District has no rights, but the people in it do have rights, it is easier to trample their rights. It is too difficult to account for the rights of all of the people living in the Ravenna District seperately.

btw: clever nick, Adan

AdanSmith 09-29-2003 05:06 PM

do we not all have equall access rights to air?

Radar 09-29-2003 07:20 PM

We have a right to air, but hold no ownership of it. We have no right to land and aren't entitled to a single inch of it if we don't earn it.

Torrere 09-29-2003 08:02 PM

No, we clearly do not all have equal access rights to air. Only an idiot who doesn't understand that not all air is equal would think that. Does someone living on a river that is buried in trash and pollutants have equal access to water as someone living on a clean lake? Does someone who lives in Mexico City have equal access to air as someone living in Tibet? Does someone working day by day deep in an old corporate office have equal access to air as someone skiing down the fresh powder slopes of Schwietzer Mountain?

Hell no!


--
Radar, are you taking the opposite line now that you did in your original post?

ThisOleMiss 09-29-2003 10:05 PM

Here's an idea for all you liberal types out there: If you don't own property, you don't get to vote on any bond issue that will raise property taxes.

I am sick to death of having a bunch of apartment dwellers vote to raise property taxes because they don't think it's going to effect them. And then they get upset when their rent goes up!
Nothing like an informed voter!

Maggie M...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.