Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Yes, and we accept that each laborer will supply only as much labor as he can obtain his monopoly wage for, because the alternative would be labor compelled by force: i.e., slavery. The situation is utterly different in the case of land, because unlike the monopoly supply of labor, which responds to price, the supply of land is fixed: it will neither increase nor decrease no matter how much or little the landholder is given in return for doing and contributing nothing but his permission to use it, so there is actually no moral or economic reason to give him anything at all.

But just to be clear, you have now agreed that because each land parcel is unique, every exclusive landholder is always inherently a monopolist. So all your butt-hurt squealing about government administration of possession and use of land being a "monopoly" is nothing but a disingenuous attempt to pretend there is an alternative to monopoly in land when you know very well there isn't.

 

You're selling communism, right?

 

You're pretending to troll, right?

 

Actually, I guess it's more like Stalinism. I'm not buying. I prefer private ownership to soviet ownership.

 

You're definitely trolling if you think such an absurd fabrication -- that Hong Kong has been Stalinist for over 160 years -- is not immediately identified as such by readers.

More accurately, you are not respecting objective facts or your readers' intelligence.

So you again state that Hong Kong has been like the Soviet Union for over 160 years. Thanks for proving once again your unfitness to participate in any civilized discussion of public policy.

 

Evil, lying liars have lied that public ownership of land -- as in Hong Kong -- is the same as public ownership of the fruits of private labor -- as in the Soviet Union -- to rationalize, justify and preserve the injustice of private ownership of land as in Raj India (which included what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh). Other evil, lying liars have lied that private ownership of the fruits of private labor as in Hong Kong is the same as private ownership of land as in Raj India to rationalize, justify and enable the injustice of public ownership of the fruits of private labor, as in the Soviet Union. The combined efforts of those two superficially opposing teams of evil, lying liars was exactly what caused Russia to become like the Soviet Union instead of Hong Kong, and Raj India to become like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh instead of Hong Kong.

GET IT????

 

Yeah, I prefer private ownership over Hong Kong's Soviet system. I'm not a fan of Stalinism.

 

I.e., you want to make people live in places that are like Pakistan and Bangladesh instead of ones more like Hong Kong. So you again disgrace yourself, and disqualify yourself from participation in civilized discourse.

 

That's despicable.

 

I'm simply not a fan of Stalinism. I prefer individual ownership of homesteads.

 

Agreed. Communism is a despicable ideology.

 

Neither am I, as I have proved repeatedly. So why do you constantly, falsely, and disingenuously characterize public administration of the possession and use of land, which is universal in all societies that have governments, as "Stalinism"? It's self-evidently false and ridiculous, and only serves to disqualify you from any civilized discussion of economic or public policy issues.

Yes, well, the question is, does that mean individual ownership of what the individual has produced in the way of fixed improvements to a parcel of land, or individual ownership of other individuals' liberty to use what nature provided for all?

 

Yes, it is exactly as despicable as repeatedly falsely claiming others advocate it when you are aware that they don't.

 

Under Stalinism, the state administers the possession of land. I'm not a fan of your suggestion. I'd prefer we each own our own piece of land. Not into the whole Stalinist thing

 

As under all other forms of government. So to call state administration of possession of land "Stalinism" is as false, disingenuous and despicable as calling work for wages "slavery" on the grounds that labor is being traded in a market, as it is under slavery.

Right, because you hate liberty (for others, that is), justice and truth.

I.e., you want to own others' rights to liberty so that you are legally entitled to abrogate their rights and inflict injustice on them, and they aren't allowed to defend themselves against your aggression. I get it. I'm sure the idea of exercising arbitrary, irresponsible power over others is very pleasing to you. That's why you advocate feudalism.

Yeah, neither am I -- as you know, but always feel you have to make $#!+ up about.

 

I prefer private ownership. I'm not a fan of your Stalinism

 

So, you are saying you would prefer that the sun, the moon, the earth's oceans and atmosphere, the alphabet, scientific knowledge, units and standards of measurement, etc. all be privately owned?

It is obvious that you want to own others' rights to liberty so that you can make them pay you for permission to exist.

So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," all societies above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding levels are "Stalinist" because government administers possession and use of land? Or is it only the geoist model of liberty and justice in public revenue and land tenure institutions that you so falsely, absurdly, and disingenuously call "Stalinism"?

ISTM you are mainly a fan of just makin' $#!+ up and falsely attributing it to me because you know you have no facts or logic to offer.

 

Um...no. I didn't say that at all.

Yeah. See, I'm not a Stalinist, so I don't agree with your Bolshevik plans. I prefer private property owned by private individuals.

 

How can you be against private property ownership of the stun, the moon, earth's oceans and atmosphere, etc.?

Are you selling communism? I doubt it. But neither is bringiton selling communism just because he prefers non-ownership of land.

 

Someone has to own the land. I prefer millions of individuals each owning their own plot rather than bringiton's stalinist approach.

 

Sure you did. You said you prefer private ownership. Are you now saying you don't prefer private ownership? Or are you saying you prefer private ownership of some things but not others? If so, then on what basis do you distinguish the things you prefer private ownership of from the things you don't prefer private ownership of? Is it just the things you own that you prefer private ownership of, and things you don't own you would prefer not be privately owned, so that you would still be at liberty to use them? I'm guessing that if you owned the atmosphere, the sun, the alphabet, etc., you would prefer private ownership of them, too. Am I right?

Yeah, see, I'm not either, and you know it. Thing is, Stalinists are really big on lying, and a Stalinist would lie about what other people have plainly written. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. That is a natural law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.

So in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," all societies above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding level are "Bolshevik" because they have monopoly government administration of possession and use of land??? Or is it only Hong Kong that has been "Bolshevik" for over 160 years? Or is it just that you are name-calling and makin' $#!+ up again because you still have no facts or logic to offer?

Yeah, me too. Thing is, my preference isn't based on whether I own that thing or not.

 

Yes, I prefer private ownership to state ownership. I'm not a fan of monopolies.

 

Yes, we have already established that you prefer private ownership of the military -- i.e., feudalism -- to state ownership thereof. Thanks for confirming that you also prefer private ownership of streets and roads, rivers, lakes, police forces, flight paths and air traffic control, etc.

Except the ones that you happen to own. Right.

Problem is, in the case of natural monopolies, private ownership leads inexorably to monopoly anyway. How do you square that circle? In ancient Rome, which pioneered private ownership of land, 90% of the land in the Empire came to be owned by just 2000 individuals (out of a population of ~60 million) in the space of just a few hundred years.

 

I don't agree that the state should own all the land.

 

You seem to be unaware of the fact that until a few thousand years ago, no land was ever owned by anyone. How do you contrive to erase from your brain self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that any normal ten-year-old could figure out?

But that is not sustainable without state intervention. Privately owned land inevitably concentrates in fewer and fewer hands because of its inherent positive feedback: the more land you own, the more rent you collect, and the more land you can buy.

You have no facts or logic to offer, so you resort to puerile name-calling based on zero (0) facts or evidence. Simple.

Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. That is a natural law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.