I have more respect for a mugger than for a privileged rich man

[K]

Unlike a privileged rich coward, at least a mugger has the balls to come close to me to unjustly take from me.

:rant

[Batz]

Preach. :applause:

[B-Low]

Does your username mean Penguin in another language?

[K]

Does your username mean Penguin in another language?

Yes, in German.

My username means King Penguin specifically.

[Batz]

[QUOTE=K

[B-Low]

[QUOTE=K

[K]

“Behind every great fortune there is a great crime.” ― Honor

[fiddy]

[QUOTE=K

[Horde of Temujin]

Many people in this country worried about minorities breaking into their homes when the white man in business attire defrauds them and seizes the whole damn thing from under their feet.

[K]

Many people in this country worried about minorities breaking into their homes when the white man in business attire defrauds them and seizes the whole damn thing from under their feet.

Bankers and mortgage debt slavery. :mad:

[plowking]

Still going on about land owning? LOL...

Get over it. Some people are better at investing.

[K]

Still going on about land owning? LOL...

Get over it. Some people are better at investing.

"Still going on about slave owning? LOL...

Get over it. Some people are better at investing."

(who cares if human rights are violated in the process :rolleyes: )

[KNOW1EDGE]

I pity anyone who is desperate and/or self-centered enough to rob someone.

I don't like muggers and I generally don't mind people with a lot of money.

[plowking]

[QUOTE=K

[DCL]

keep buying $10 starbucks coffee, the newest smartphones, plasma tvs, whatever, and roll it with your credit card and move into a mountain of debt and never have savings or anything for retirement.

whose fault is that? you, the dumb ass consumer who sees stuff from superbowl ads or american idol commercials and then go out and buy. your ass is living paycheck to paycheck, with nothing in your ira or 401, yet you continue to buy shit that makes no sense.

of course, you never point the finger at yourself but only care to blame the banks who gave you all this credit to *** yourselves over with. yeah, the banks don't give a *** about you, but most of you did all this to yourself too.

[K]

Funny that you even think its comparable. :oldlol:

Of course it's comparable. How about a little thought experiment. You shipwreck on an island. You hear a gun cocking right behind you. You turn around and a man says, "Look, this is my island. Now, you can either swim back to wherever you came from or we can come to a mutual agreement where I let you stay on here but you'll have to work for me."

Does it make a difference whether the man owns you or owns the island? In both cases you are essentially his slave and must labor for him. In the same sense, people's rights are being violated in our system of landowning. Little by little, piece by piece, even if not in the absolute sense as in the thought experiment since there is still plenty of marginal land. There are some barriers in place too. But you are being systematically deprived of your liberty and give up the fruits of your labor under duress.

Landowners, in their capacity as landowners, contribute nothing. They just take. Take. Take. Take. Take through their legal legal privileges. Depriving people of the fruits of their labor under duress.

[K]

There is a reason Real Estate is the most common way the rich get rich and stay rich. It's all about monopolizing land in locations which people need to make use of in order to make a living. Landowners didn't put the land there. They didn't make it valuable. They literally contribute nothing (as far as the return to landowning is concerned). Utter non production. The Real Estate market is all about taking as much as possible from the economy while contributing as little as possible.

"Landlords grow richer in their sleep, without working, risking, or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title." - John Stuart Mill

[CeltsGarlic]

So how real estate should work in your opinion?

[K]

So how real estate should work in your opinion?

Our tax system right now works to enrich landowners at everyone else's expense. As locations become more desirable through spending on infrastructure and services and more of a necessity to have access to, demand goes up and thus value goes up. This value currently goes into the pockets of landowners for doing nothing. That's why owning land is such a massive cash cow. You essentially become a receptacle for other people's taxes. So, the idea is to implement a land value tax which would prevent land value from going into landowners' pockets for doing nothing and will now instead be used as government's primary stream of revenue. People would still pay the same for land as they do now (but only on a basis of annual rental value as purchase price drops to 0, that's a huge benefit actually, as that in general reduce the price of buying a home or other real estate by about 60%+). The difference is that using land value as the basis of taxation would allow us to abolish harmful taxes like the income tax and the sales tax. It would lift massive tax burden off the economy, would bring more land to productive use as speculators flee (good riddance!) because it is no longer worthwhile to deprive others of opportunity, mortgage slavery would be a thing of the past, etc. The poor would be much better off. The middle class would be much better off. The only people who wouldn't be better off are those who make the bulk of their money through land value. I could go on for hours about this.

[Blue&Orange]

http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/funny-gangsters-run-this-hit-politicians-president-bush-laughing-they-think-pics.jpg

[Bandito]

So OP, you would prefer someone to use violence to steal money than the opposite?

[K]

So OP, you would prefer someone to use violence to steal money than the opposite?

The privileged rich man has the government use threat of violence for him to violate other people's liberty for his profit.

At least the mugger does it himself. :oldlol:

[fiddy]

So OP, you would prefer someone to use violence to steal money than the opposite?
Mortgages dont create violence and suffering?

[kNicKz]

http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/funny-gangsters-run-this-hit-politicians-president-bush-laughing-they-think-pics.jpg

:roll: :roll: :roll:

!!!

[TheReturn]

[QUOTE=K

[MavsSuperFan]

sigh, So sad that some people actually respect criminals.

If you use violence to steal stuff you are scum imo. Most often you are just robbing some immigrants small business. Way to be thug, robbing defenseless people just trying to get by.

There are a huge variety of rich people. Many of them got rich by being extremely intelligent, Eg. Bill Gates, Larry Paige, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, etc.

Even the Banksters as they are called were at least smart enough that they didnt need to resort to being a thug.

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=K

[MavsSuperFan]

Mortgages dont create violence and suffering?
No they dont. If you make a commitment to pay something and then fail to do so, that is your fault. Not the fault of the lender.
I have 2 mortgages on 2 different properties. Of course its stressful, but its not the lenders fault.

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=K

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=K

[InfiniteBaskets]

[QUOTE=K

[D-Rose]

keep buying $10 starbucks coffee, the newest smartphones, plasma tvs, whatever, and roll it with your credit card and move into a mountain of debt and never have savings or anything for retirement.

whose fault is that? you, the dumb ass consumer who sees stuff from superbowl ads or american idol commercials and then go out and buy. your ass is living paycheck to paycheck, with nothing in your ira or 401, yet you continue to buy shit that makes no sense.

of course, you never point the finger at yourself but only care to blame the banks who gave you all this credit to *** yourselves over with. yeah, the banks don't give a *** about you, but most of you did all this to yourself too.
Exactly man. This is a country you want to be in if you're poor. You can go to school and get any damn degree you want and responsibly pay off the loans and have a great career. Instead people are content with high school degrees and flipping burgers. Get yourself together. I hate all the resentment towards most "rich" people. A lot of these people make their money by working their asses off and spending wisely. Screw you if you can't get an education or work hard.

[K]

sigh, So sad that some people actually respect criminals.

If you use violence to steal stuff you are scum imo. Most often you are just robbing some immigrants small business. Way to be thug, robbing defenseless people just trying to get by.

Straw man alert.


There are a huge variety of rich people. Many of them got rich by being extremely intelligent, Eg. Bill Gates, Larry Paige, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, etc.

Most of the rich get as rich as they are through privilege. IP monopoly privilege. Landowning privilege. Debt money privilege. Or even spectrum allocations (Carlos Slim Helu). They get money far out of proportion with what their productive contributions to the economy (if they make any at all) are worth.



Even the Banksters as they are called were at least smart enough that they didnt need to resort to being a thug.

They do far more damage than thugs.

[K]

If you dont want rent dont, buy your own property. I have never forced any of my tenants to rent from me.

"If you don't want to pay your protection money, move somewhere else and pay another protection racketeer or start your own protection racket. I'm not forcing you to do business here."

That's what your "logic" sounds like.

[K]

You realize real estate taxes already exist right?

They only tap a small portion of what society gives the landowner, and they also partially fall onto improvements (which I don't want).

[Raymone]

Why should humans be allowed to own anything? All of our possessions should be divvied up and shared amongst the community, man! Land, houses, vehicles, clothing, savings. Everything!

Private ownership is evil. Let's make a concerted effort to move towards the commie, hippy, shared bullshit.

[K]

Its an extremely flawed comparison because people dont have to rent. They can take it upon themselves to save up their money and buy a place of their own.

"You don't have to stay on this island, you can always get back in the water and swim back to wherever you came from."

Anyways, it's not that simple. While you're trying to save up money to satisfy a landowners upfront extortion fee in order to buy a place of your own, land values appreciate right along with the economy and your productive contributions to the economy are being taxed and are then also being given to landowners. Most people will never, ever escape this vicious cycle. It's by design. It's a massive scam.


Owning land doesnt violate rights.

It violates the rights of everyone who's now deprived of the opportunities available at that location unless they pay extortion money to the landowner for doing nothing.


Last november i bought a rental property and am renting it out for extra income. I had to borrow money, from a bank and some from my parents and basically use the vast majority of my savings in order to make it happen. How is it fair in your opinion that tenants do not have to pay rent? How am i robbing them? I have never forced anyone to be my tenant.

Here is the story of the bandit/landowner (I didn't write it):

"THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

Is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed?

If there were two, or three, or 300 passes, each with its own bandit, would the merchants' being at liberty to choose which bandit robs them make the bandits' enterprise a competitive industry in a free market?"

I hope that made it clear enough that you are robbing them.

[K]

Exactly man. This is a country you want to be in if you're poor. You can go to school and get any damn degree you want and responsibly pay off the loans and have a great career. Instead people are content with high school degrees and flipping burgers. Get yourself together. I hate all the resentment towards most "rich" people. A lot of these people make their money by working their asses off and spending wisely. Screw you if you can't get an education or work hard.

There is a lot of people who work hard but don't deserve the money they get. A bank robber works hard. Does that mean he deserves the money he gets? If not, then why not? Let's see that logic of yours.

Prediction: You will cite legality.

[travelingman]

Why should humans be allowed to own anything? All of our possessions should be divvied up and shared amongst the community, man! Land, houses, vehicles, clothing, savings. Everything!

Private ownership is evil. Let's make a concerted effort to move towards the commie, hippy, shared bullshit.

Communism is too perfect of a system for humans.

[K]

Why should humans be allowed to own anything?

Because people have a natural right to own the fruits of their labor.


All of our possessions should be divvied up and shared amongst the community, man! Land, houses, vehicles, clothing, savings. Everything!

Straw man.


Private ownership is evil.

Private ownership is evil if what you own is a privilege which violates other people's rights, land titles being the best example. It's interesting that apologists support property rights in such legal privilege more than they support the actual and genuine property rights (in the moral sense) and liberty of people such legal privilege violates.


Let's make a concerted effort to move towards the commie, hippy, shared bullshit.

Straw man.

[Jailblazers7]

Wait, are you the guy who advocates a 100% land value tax or are you advocating the end of land ownership completely?

[K]

Wait, are you the guy who advocates a 100% land value tax or are you advocating the end of land ownership completely?

Land value tax. Private and exclusive land tenure is a necessity. Maybe make it leasehold similar to Hong Kong. But ultimately the really important part is that the holders of such privilege pay the land value tax to compensate society for what they are being given.

[Hazard]

Communism is too perfect of a system for humans.
Communism will never work.

First off the population is too large. The basis of communism/Marxism is to view all people as brothers and sisters, this will never be possible with this size of the population and the racial/economic/nationalistic tension that exists.

Second there is no drive to work, everyone makes the same and there is no reason to put in any extra effort. You can be a farmer and drink all day and not do shit and still get paid, and why not? No one will know anything cause everyones doing it. So now we got empty shelves at the supermarket and no one has food, so they rob each other.

Also this is system transitioning from another system. In most cases the current system in place is not equal, and people do earn more than others. How do you convince them to share the wealth? You don't, you take it from them by force.

In short, Communism is bullshit.

[TheMarkMadsen]

[QUOTE=K

[K]

Communism will never work.

First off the population is too large. The basis of communism/Marxism is to view all people as brothers and sisters, this will never be possible with this size of the population and the racial/economic/nationalistic tension that exists.

Second there is no drive to work, everyone makes the same and there is no reason to put in any extra effort. You can be a farmer and drink all day and not do shit and still get paid, and why not? No one will know anything cause everyones doing it. So now we got empty shelves at the supermarket and no one has food, so they rob each other.

Also this is system transitioning from another system. In most cases the current system in place is not equal, and people do earn more than others. How do you convince them to share the wealth? You don't, you take it from them by force.

In short, Communism is bullshit.

I don't see any communists in this thread so I'm not sure who or what exactly the two of you are addressing.

[KingBeasley08]

OP is dirt-poor and salty as fvck :lol

advocating all this shit but if he had a chance to be rich, he'd abandon ship immediately

[travelingman]

Communism will never work.

First off the population is too large. The basis of communism/Marxism is to view all people as brothers and sisters, this will never be possible with this size of the population and the racial/economic/nationalistic tension that exists.

Second there is no drive to work, everyone makes the same and there is no reason to put in any extra effort. You can be a farmer and drink all day and not do shit and still get paid, and why not? No one will know anything cause everyones doing it. So now we got empty shelves at the supermarket and no one has food, so they rob each other.

Also this is system transitioning from another system. In most cases the current system in place is not equal, and people do earn more than others. How do you convince them to share the wealth? You don't, you take it from them by force.

In short, Communism is bullshit.

Human greed is what halts any effort to achieve pure communism. It's a fault of our own (as to why it will never be implemented), not of communism.

[K]

OP is dirt-poor and salty as fvck :lol

advocating all this shit but if he had a chance to be rich, he'd abandon ship immediately

I'm sure that's what you would've said to the abolitionists back in the day.

Interestingly enough, even after chattel slavery was abolished many of them were still de facto slaves to the landed interests:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: "Mas George, you say you sot us free; but 'fore God, I'm wus off than when I belonged to your father." The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say: "How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves." How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can." - George M. Jackson

[Hazard]

[QUOTE=K

[K]

Well I don't feel like talking about some pointless, hypothetical real estate tax that is pretty much impossible to implement into any kind of system,

The property tax is already implemented. It just needs to be changed. Also, Kiaochow, Meiji Japan, and Hong Kong say hello. There have been plenty of places which prove that land value taxes work even if not done to as high a degree as possible. But the general relationship has been the higher the land value taxes the better and the lower the worse.



and your opening post was outright retarded so I'll just stick to communism. Thanks for asking though.

I just thought of all the people who've been robbed, starved, oppressed, and killed by landowning privilege throughout history. The law of rent makes it inevitable. We can count ourselves lucky we have some government intervention which prevents that from happening. Other people in third world shit holes aren't as lucky. They are very close to essentially being slaves of landed interests. Think of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Guatemala etc.

[Bandito]

King Penguin, you should just shut your ignorant ass up. You would back a mugger who would use violence on innocent people than another man who is just rich from legal means? You are just ignorant and childish.

[K]

King Penguin, you should just shut your ignorant ass up. You would back a mugger who would use violence on innocent people than another man who is just rich from legal means? You are just ignorant and childish.

I'm not backing either, fool.

BTW, slave owning was legal once too. So why don't you just shut your ignorant ass up pretending that citing legal status make something rightful (in the moral sense).

You disgust me.

[Jello]

You are one stupid motherfker.:lol

[Hazard]

[QUOTE=K

[Bandito]

[QUOTE=K

[K]

Yes because rich people now have slaves. Stop bringing past history that has nothing to do with present times. Capitalism is what it is. Not saying they are right but anyone that uses violence to take what they want is big no no for me.

You cited legal status as your basis for moral righteousness. The same logic would morally justify slavery. Let that sink in. Feel disgusted yet? I do. I doubt you will since it seems you don't understand how logic works.

Anyways, they do forcefully deprive everyone else of their natural liberty to use land, they forcefully deprive everyone else of their natural liberty to productively use information in the public domain (IP), etc. All done through the threat of violence.


Slave owners are no more, at least in MOST countries in the west. Stop being so butthurt. If you want to get rich then study, make a business and try to earn money instead of sitting in your basement whining why rich people are rich while you are poor working at MCD...

Most of the rich don't get rich by doing productive business. They get rich by rent seeking.

[K]

The capital of a totalitarian shithole has implemented this tax, so it must be a good idea. I'm not arguing with you about whether the tax is good or bad, it may be a very good idea. All I'm saying is that I don't give a shit.

I cited three examples of higher taxes on land value creating prosperity. And they didn't even go close to all the way. That's all. You could also compare Pittsburgh with it's relatively higher taxes on land value compared to other Rust Belt cities which have been doing worse accordingly. There are many examples.


Other people in third world shitholes are used as slave labor so I don't think they care as much about the real estate tax. Read about the stadium being built for the 2014 Olympics, look at outsourced labor, shit look at Apple (China btw). I don't think those people are worried about some tax as much as they're worried about not dying a slave.

The absence of justice in a system of land tenure forces people into cheap labor and poverty, duh.

So I'm sure they'd care very much if one would educate them.

[Bandito]

[QUOTE=K

[K]

:facepalm

You cited legal status as basis of moral righteousness. Same logic would morally justify slavery.

Meaning your "argument" turned to dust.


Yes because that is the same thing. Why instead of whining about your lack of money you go out and get an education and try to get rich? Moaning and whining in your couch while filling you 250 lbs beer gut is not going to help things.

I want to stop the legal robbery committed by the rich on the productive and not join in on it.

Look up 'rent seeking' and learn something for a change.

[Bandito]

[QUOTE=K

[KingBeasley08]

So your logic is to be dirt poor by "choice".

I can understand if you actually got higher education and decided to just not work what you studied and do whatever you want, like that guy that went to travel the world as a vagabond. But your logic is that you don't do anything to get better yourself and just go whine about nonsense you don't understand because you feel rich people shouldn't be rich. That is what's wrong with your "logic".

Couch potato whines about people having more money than them and they live off the government...

Seriously..:facepalm
And of all places to complain, he comes to a basketball forum. I think the dude's just trolling

[Bandito]

And of all places to complain, he comes to a basketball forum. I think the dude's just trolling
I don't think he is though, that's what sad:facepalm

[K]

So your logic is to be dirt poor by "choice".

Nope.


I can understand if you actually got higher education and decided to just not work what you studied and do whatever you want, like that guy that went to travel the world as a vagabond. But your logic is that you don't do anything to get better yourself and just go whine about nonsense you don't understand because you feel rich people shouldn't be rich. That is what's wrong with your "logic".

With "bettering yourself" I assume you mean using legal force to steal from the productive.

Have you looked up 'rent seeking' yet?


Couch potato whines about people having more money than them and they live off the government...

LMFAO! Nobody lives more off the government than the parasitic rich. They are the ultimate government tit suckers. Who issues and enforces IP monopoly privileges? Hmm? Government. Who do you think issues and enforces land titles? Hmm? Government. And government spending on public goods increases land values and thus enriches landowners at taxpayers' expense. Look up 'Henry George Theorem'. It's been mathematically proven.


Seriously..:facepalm

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[K]

And of all places to complain, he comes to a basketball forum. I think the dude's just trolling


I don't think he is though, that's what sad:facepalm

If I'm sad, I wonder what you are since I chop your "arguments" to pieces with ease.

[Just2McFly]

sigh, So sad that some people actually respect criminals.

If you use violence to steal stuff you are scum imo. Most often you are just robbing some immigrants small business. Way to be thug, robbing defenseless people just trying to get by.

There are a huge variety of rich people. Many of them got rich by being extremely intelligent, Eg. Bill Gates, Larry Paige, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, etc.

Even the Banksters as they are called were at least smart enough that they didnt need to resort to being a thug.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

so as long as they non-violently take away your money it's okay? wtf kind of planet do i live on?

you need to get out more

[KingBeasley08]

The rich do have benefits for sure. Great benefits. But that's just the way of the world. You can't beat em. You can't. So join em :pimp:

Crying about this on a basketball forum isn't gonna do anything

[MavsSuperFan]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

so as long as they non-violently take away your money it's okay? wtf kind of planet do i live on?

you need to get out more

I am not even sure I agree with the premise that they are committing a crime.
If someone sells you a pile of shit, and you are too stupid to notice, its at least partially your fault, as long as you are given the choice of weather to buy or not. Violence removes freedom of choice. Its a significant distinction on planet earth.

You need to stop blaming rich people for everything.

[Graviton]

Does it even matter, in the end we all die the same. Some may perish richer, others dirt poor. All you can do is just make the best out of your situation and move on. No one said the world is fair, complaining about the rich is basically like the zebra bitching about the lions ****ing them over every day, or the lions complaining about elephants walking to their territory and bullying them around, and elephants crying about humans shooting them for no reason.

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=K

[2013 Lakers]

[QUOTE=K

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=K

[tomtucker]

[QUOTE=K

[K]

:lol
and you accuse me of using a strawman argument?

Do you believe people have a right to life? Because a natural right to life implies a natural right to use land. If all land is owned, there is very, very little difference between a slave and a landless man. In fact, I'd say the landless man is more often than not worse off than the slave. Think of the Irish. British landlords owned all the good land which meant that the Irish were essentially their slaves as the law of rent pushed them down to subsistence levels. Almost all of the food they produced the British simply charged them as rent for the opportunity to use the land. The Irish were able to keep just enough for bare subsistence (just enough to keep them alive, after all, who wants a dead tenant/slave?) while the British landlords got richer and richer for doing nothing. (It got worse when their potato crops started to fail and they died by the millions.). It's not nearly as bad for us right now, but our rights are still being violated in the same manner even if not to the same extreme. We also have to give up fruits of our labor to privileged landowners for doing nothing.


What is your solution to this situation, just seize the land and give it all away? Way to go Mao.

No, the solution if to have the holders of such government issued and enforced privilege, which abrogates other people's rights, pay compensation in form of the land value tax. Just as it was originally intended in the Articles of Confederation before it got scratched in the U.S. constitution as a favor to privileged landed interests.

From the Articles of Confederation:

"VIII.

All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled."

Thomas Paine:

"Men did not make the earth.... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

Yup. I worship Mao. Thomas Paine did too! LOL!!! Maybe you need to read up on the history of your own country a bit more.


The only way landowning would violate rights, would be if it was limited to only one type of person. Eg. If only men, or certain races could own land.

Wrong. It violates the rights of everyone who natural liberty to use land is violated. And you certainly don't seem to understand how the economy affects land values. Economy improves land values improve. Government spends tax money on infrastructure and services land values improve due to obvious reasons. It's mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for the vast majority of people ever to join the privileged landowning class because if they try to save and work harder more and more money is simply taken from them and given to landowners for doing nothing, as the economic Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem prove.


Inequality in result ≠ inequality in opportunity.

Monopolization of opportunity is the reason landowners can get so rich for doing nothing. They simply deny other people opportunity unless you pay them to get out of your damn way. Like the bandit in the pass in the story I quoted. Want access to the job market? Pay a landowner for it. Want access to sewer systems, police, hospitals, fire department, etc. etc. etc.? Pay a landowner for it.

"A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community increases the land value and finds its way automatically into the landlord's pocket. If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new railway or new tramway, or the institution of improved services of a lowering of fares, or of a new invention, or any other public convenience affords a benefit to workers in any particular district, it becomes easier for them to live, and therefore the ground landlord is able to charge them more for the privilege of living there.

Some years ago in London there was a toll bar on a bridge across the Thames, and all the working people who lived on the south side of the river had to pay a daily toll of one penny for going and returning from their work. The spectacle of these poor people thus mulcted of so large a proportion of their earnings offended the public conscience, and agitation was set on foot, municipal authorities were roused, and at the cost of the taxpayers, the bridge was freed and the toll removed. All those people who used the bridge were saved sixpence a week, but within a very short time rents on the south side of the river were found to have risen about sixpence a week, or the amount of the toll which had been remitted!

And a friend of mine was telling me the other day that, in the parish of Southwark, about 350 pounds a year was given away in doles of bread by charitable people in connection with one of the churches. As a consequence of this charity, the competition for small houses and single-room tenements is so great that rents are considerably higher in the parish!

All goes back to the land, and the land owner is able to absorb to himself a share of almost every public and every private benefit, however important or however pitiful those benefits may be." - Winston Churchill


I could race Usain bolt 100 times, and I would get crushed 100 times. This doesn't mean the competition was unfair. The inequality of result is justified, because he is much, much faster than me.

Only that in the case of landowning Usain Bolt would sit in a little vehicle while you're tied with resistance bands to the starting line. The harder you pull and the faster you try to run this energy is then transferred to the little vehicle Usain Bolt sits in and while he gets faster and faster and further out of reach you're having a harder and harder time just staying in the same place.


I see no problem with this. If some entity owns some land or bridge or canal or etc and wishes to charge a toll for its usage. Its perfectly legitimate. I pay tolls almost everyday. Parking downtown vancouver can cost as much as $18 a day. it sucks but its not robbery, no one forces me to pay it, its a choice I make sometimes when I absolutely need/want my car.

If you are applying this to me,
Nature doesn't provide buildings. the original owner built the building. Presumably as an investment to earn rental income. He sold it to another owner looking to earn rental income. Eventually I bought it hoping to earn rental income.

Nature doesn't provide buildings, duh. Nature provides land. And it's the community which makes it such a valuable location, not you. You just want the easy route of profiting from privilege rather than production and I don't necessarily blame you because the way our system is set up you are either a bandit or a victim. You're just doing your best to be a part of the bandits.



Tariffs are perfectly legitimate. If you don't want to pay them make the choice to do business elsewhere.

Well, thank you for not disputing that the only difference between the bandit and the landowner is legality.


What's next are you going to complain that people who sell fruit are thieves because nature provided the fruit?

Fruits are a product of labor. You have to grow them, pick them, and then move them somewhere else to sell them. Unlike land which would be there ready to be utilized even if you are any other landowner never existed. Landowners contribute nothing. All they do is take. What they may also do in their different capacity as providers of improvements does not make a difference to what they do in their capacity as landowners.


Nope. If I was holding a gun at them and threatening that I would shoot them if they tried to move away sure. But I am selling them a room in a property I own for a period of time, (1 month). At anytime they can choose to leave. if the room is in reasonable shape I will return their deposit.

It's not about the building you're providing and thus charging for. It's about the land and location which are are not providing and yet are privilege to charge people for.

[K]

Do you realize that in your fantasy world where people don't charge rent,that probably nothing would ever get built.

I never said people shouldn't charge rent. Pay some attention to my posts.


The profit motive drives almost everything, and for 99% of things the free market is the best allocator of resources. The free market is obviously driven by the profit motive.

The free market is not going to provide any more land. In fact, land ownership is an example of monopoly. You can't make more of it. You can't move it where it's needed, etc. Landowners simply charge monopoly price for the use of land.

"The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give." - Adam Smith

It's an uncompetitive market and the only way to make it competitive is with the land value tax.


Lets assume we lived in a world where earning rental income and earning interest income were a crime. As you seem to believe that they should be. You liken them to theft.

Rental income from land is unearned. Rental income from buildings is earned. The land value tax would make sure you don't get to keep unearned part of the rent you collect.


Why are buildings built?

Who built the land? Oops.


Because the person that finances the construction hopes to eventually earn a return on his investment.

I see nothing wrong with making money of improvements. Improvements are a valuable contribution to the economy.


The most common way this is done is to rent out the space, either commercially (office space, retail space, restaurant location, etc) or as residential property. They invest money to build up the property and improve their neighborhoods value. Is it wrong for them to expect to be paid rent? they are in effect selling a tangible good to their tenant. (The space to live or conduct business).

I dont see what is unjust about this. and Overall I am by American standards a liberal.

The construction financing probably required that the owner take out a loan of some sort. What lender would lend money without the promise of a return? The world you imagine would be a terrible place to live for everyone, especially the poor.

Actually, supply of improvements would drastically increase in the system I propose because I intend to untax improvements and simply tax the full rental value of land instead. Exchange values of land drop to near 0. Also there will be no more taxes on production. Since improvements will be the only way to make money in the real estate market the supply would increase drastically.

No deadweight loss to the economy. It just removes a parasitic element from the real estate market.

[KeylessEntry]

[QUOTE=K

[Bandito]

[QUOTE=K

[K]

You did what? I don't even remember what you wrote and I am not even going to bother.:roll: :roll: :roll: :facepalm

But if you think violence is best option than the opposite you are just an immature man mad at the world because people like Miley Cyrus are richer just because they are.

Let me know when your reading comprehension skills rise above kindergarten level.

:sleeping

[Bandito]

[QUOTE=K

[K]

I find myself agreeing with a lot of the stuff you have been saying in this thread. Land ownership is a rather strange concept when I really think about it, and the idea of owning and profiting off of subsurface minerals is even more bizzare.

:cheers:

As a society we want to make production as rewarding as possible and this means in the case of landowning and mineral rights owning to require the privilege holder to pay compensation for the deprivation they impose on everyone else so they can't just stuff parts of other people's production in their pockets despite not contributing to production. Such a system would be magnitudes more just and efficient than the current system where we do the reverse and impose a burden on production to enrich the rent seekers.

[K]

Lost the argument and resolved to insults, and I am the one under kindergarten level:facepalm :lol

funny kid.A loser who is jealous people around him are getting better while he is in the same couch whining about how a violent mugger is better than a rich man because he is dirt poor working for MCD because he's not smart enough to earn more than minimum wage. A true BETA.

Straw men and ad homs noted, as usual. If you have nothing to offer stop boring me. :sleeping

[Bandito]

[QUOTE=K

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=K

[Simple Jack]

OP is flat out wrong regarding why we have property law, amongst the other things he's mentioned in this thread. Why is anyone taking him seriously?