A major problem with Capitalism, that no one wants to talk about - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14905160
Truth To Power wrote:Wrong:
Middle ages
The medieval marriage fine or merchet has been interpreted as a payment for the droit de seigneur to be waived.
The supposed right was abolished by Ferdinand II of Aragon in Article 9 the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe of 1486.
In 1527, Scottish historian Hector Boece wrote that the right had existed in Scotland until abolished by Malcolm III. William Blackstone mentioned the custom in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769),echoing Boece's claim.
The right was mentioned in 1556 in the Recueil d'arrêts notables des cours souveraines de France of French lawyer and author Jean Papon (1505–1590). Voltaire mentioned the practice in his Dictionnaire philosophique, published in 1764.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_ ... references


Actually, you are wrong.

The very wikipedia article cited DEFINES Prima Noctis as mythical. and your references confirm the historian's critique that there are not sufficient first hand legal or authorial accounts to justify the belief in its existence. Indeed, your sources are all at least two hundred years removed from when the practice was alleged to be most widespread, and some are up to 500 years removed from the alleged time-period. There is an utter lack of first-hand source material to confirm this practice. This is why the wikipedia article and other historical commentaries have concluded the practice to be myth. Likely propaganda from republican revolutionary types.

Droit du seigneur (/ˈdrɑː də seɪˈnjɜːr/; French pronunciation: ​[dʁwa dy sɛɲœʁ]) ("lord's right"), also known as jus primae noctis (/ʒʌs ˈpraɪmiː ˈnɒktɪs/; Latin pronunciation: [ju:s ˈpri:mae̯ 'nɔktɪs]) ("right of the first night"), refers to a supposed legal right in medieval Europe, and elsewhere, allowing feudal lords to have sexual relations with subordinate women (the "wedding night" detail is specific to some variants). There is no evidence of the right being exercised in medieval Europe, and all known references to it are from later time periods.[1][2] Overall, medieval jus primae noctis can be considered a historical fiction fabricated after that era.[3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur

Truth To Power wrote:That is a claim contrary to the evidence. History is replete with starvation in the midst of plenty in societies where private property was absolute, because private property in other people's rights to liberty lets the owners starve anyone who disobeys.


I thought you argued that there were few private property absolutist societies because they only occurred in the midst of major government collapse?

Furthermore, the hold of the papacy after it consolidated its power in the investiture controversy, combined with viking conquests and Islamic conquests earlier all delayed the proper development of medieval society. The renaissance and early enlightenment (before the age of absolutist monarchism) when economies and populations and learning all exploded resulted from private property absolutism unhindered. The Reformation, The Reconquista, and the influx of learning from the displaced Greeks allowed for Private property absolutism to develop properly as it should have all the way back in A.D. 650. and we would have colonized the galaxy by now had it not been for the rise of statism and especially democratic states which tend towards the destruction of real economic growth and moral fortitude in their inevitable evolution towards communism and animalist barbarism.

Several economists have reached this same conclusion, that the decentralized state of Europe at this time and its unprecedented trading (in combination with the discoveries in the Americas) fueled what might be called "early modern capitalism" which is semi-erroneously attributed to the protestant work-ethic (following the work of Max Weber).

No amount of Georgist tears will change this reality.

Truth To Power wrote:I see. That must be why in feudal societies, everyone is poor....


No, its because circumstances prevented the praexological necessity of things from reaching their true heights.

Indeed, it is in the nature of a flower to bloom, but if soil conditions are poisoned, water cut-off, etc., the blooming will not occur. However, it would be a mistake to say that in light of such factors that it is not in the nature of the flower to bloom. You are making the same mistake in your analysis.

Truth To Power wrote:The earth's atmosphere does not belong to anyone


That is only because individuals do not have the means to appropriate and divide it. :D

That is more or less the difference between solids and gases.

The atmosphere cannot be privately retained because of its very nature.....that being said, I wouldn't mind if Georgists quit breathing my air. :lol:

Truth To Power wrote: Feudal libertarianism therefore stands refuted.


Hardly.

Truth To Power wrote:"Your" land? What would make it "your" land but your intention forcibly to deprive everyone else of their liberty to use it?


Correct. Just like with my wife, my ability to secure her for myself is my only natural guarantee against being forced to share her with others that might have incentive to use her for their own reproductive needs.

The same applies for my access to resources, if there is no government, and I don't want someone taking my water supply or my produce that I need in order to survive, I have to secure the land on which such exists, and typically from the same sort of people that would want to take my wife. My wife, my water, and my crops are all claimed by me and they are kept from others by my ability to defend them. Hence, they are mine and they are privately retained.

Truth To Power wrote:You have no right to demand that they pay YOU for what NATURE provided to all


Sure I do, I claim it and if they try to take it, I will shoot them. If they are willing to give me a % of their produce and their loyalty, I won't shoot them and we can have a very pleasant relationship where I offer them a home, the ability to produce crops, and life where they can raise their families in safety without fear of the sort of aimless marauders they once were.

Its quite simple really.
#14905237
Sivad wrote:You seem to agree that in principal capitalism would be illegitimate if workers were capable of self management. That's really all I need.

No, I have stated that capitalism IS illegitimate for a completely independent reason: the fact that it requires private ownership of land, which forcibly removes everyone's rights to liberty.
I would also add that people have a RIGHT to produce for themselves and that capitalism is a fundamental infringement of that RIGHT.

Right, because it removes their liberty to use land, liberty our ancestors enjoyed for millions of years before greedy, evil parasites stole it by force.
It's really a tyranny of exclusion.

Whom does a capitalist exclude? From what?
Capitalists don't offer people opportunities they would not otherwise have had,

Yes, they most certainly and indisputably do: the opportunity to use the producer goods the capitalist provides.
capitalists deprive people of the opportunity to produce for themselves and own the products of their labor.

No. Landowners do that. Not capital owners. The land was already there, ready to use, and the landowner just deprives others of their liberty to use it unless they meet his extortion demands. The capital goods were NOT there without the capitalist to provide them, and WOULD NOT be there for workers to use if he had not provided them. Try to find a willingness to know that self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality.
SolarCross wrote:How the fuck? :lol:

By definition, under capitalism workers must pay landowners full market value just for PERMISSION to work on land that would otherwise have been available.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 11 Apr 2018 20:11, edited 1 time in total.
#14905278
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Actually, you are wrong.

The very wikipedia article cited DEFINES Prima Noctis as mythical.

No, it merely OPINES that it is.
and your references confirm the historian's critique that there are not sufficient first hand legal or authorial accounts to justify the belief in its existence. Indeed, your sources are all at least two hundred years removed from when the practice was alleged to be most widespread, and some are up to 500 years removed from the alleged time-period.

Blackstone is generally considered quite authoritative, and it seems unlikely that more than one king would bother to legally abolish something that did not legally exist.
There is an utter lack of first-hand source material to confirm this practice. This is why the wikipedia article and other historical commentaries have concluded the practice to be myth. Likely propaganda from republican revolutionary types.

Yes, well, maybe the practice was made up to advance republican causes, and maybe it has been erased from history to whitewash landowners' evil.
I thought you argued that there were few private property absolutist societies because they only occurred in the midst of major government collapse?

I know what feudalism and capitalism are, but I don't know what "private property absolutist" means.
Furthermore, the hold of the papacy after it consolidated its power in the investiture controversy, combined with viking conquests and Islamic conquests earlier all delayed the proper development of medieval society.

Feudal societies don't develop; they're stagnant, for reasons already explained. They only evolve into something more advanced, typically monarchy.
The renaissance and early enlightenment (before the age of absolutist monarchism) when economies and populations and learning all exploded resulted from private property absolutism unhindered.

No, of course they didn't. The Renaissance resulted from the decline of feudalism and re-emergence of republican government based on recovery of classical knowledge (especially land taxation in Venice), the Crusades, and the emergence of the middle class due to the increase in wages and crash of land rents caused by the Black Death.
The Reformation, The Reconquista, and the influx of learning from the displaced Greeks allowed for Private property absolutism to develop properly as it should have all the way back in A.D. 650. and we would have colonized the galaxy by now had it not been for the rise of statism and especially democratic states which tend towards the destruction of real economic growth and moral fortitude in their inevitable evolution towards communism and animalist barbarism.

:lol: Ahistorical codswallop. It is feudalism that prevents economic growth, as it diverts all economic surplus to defense of landholdings, making capital investment impossible.
Several economists have reached this same conclusion, that the decentralized state of Europe at this time and its unprecedented trading (in combination with the discoveries in the Americas) fueled what might be called "early modern capitalism" which is semi-erroneously attributed to the protestant work-ethic (following the work of Max Weber).

It was the Black Death that raised wages by crashing land rents, leading to the emergence of the middle class.
No amount of Georgist tears will change this reality.

The Black Death proves the Georgist analysis is correct: the inverse relation of population to wages.
No, its because circumstances prevented the praexological necessity of things from reaching their true heights.

Silliness.
Indeed, it is in the nature of a flower to bloom, but if soil conditions are poisoned, water cut-off, etc., the blooming will not occur. However, it would be a mistake to say that in light of such factors that it is not in the nature of the flower to bloom. You are making the same mistake in your analysis.

Nope. My analysis is correct. Yours is ahistorical and anti-economic nonsense.
That is only because individuals do not have the means to appropriate and divide it. :D

Probably. If greedy, evil, parasitic thieves could deprive everyone else of air to breathe unless they paid rent for it, as they deprive everyone else of land unless they pay rent for it, they would.
That is more or less the difference between solids and gases.

No, it's just a difference in law. The atmosphere could be legally appropriated as private property just as land, broadcast spectrum, water, knowledge, ideas, etc. have been if greedy, evil, parasitic thieves could revise the law to grant them that power.
The atmosphere cannot be privately retained because of its very nature.....that being said, I wouldn't mind if Georgists quit breathing my air.

Ideas also cannot be privately retained because of their very nature -- but that hasn't stopped greedy, evil, parasitic thieves from getting laws passed that enable them to privatize ideas.
Hardly.

No, indisputably. I proved that the Basic Lie of feudal libertarianism is a lie: those who claim to own land ARE, INDISPUTABLY, forcibly depriving others of something that did not belong to them. The feudalists' so-called "non-aggression principle" is therefore nothing of the sort, and merely a rationalization for depriving the victims of naked thievery of their right to defend themselves.
Correct. Just like with my wife, my ability to secure her for myself is my only natural guarantee against being forced to share her with others that might have incentive to use her for their own reproductive needs.

Where on earth did you find a woman who was not appalled to be thought of in such terms?

Being "forced to share" natural resources with others is the natural state of humanity, and worked for millions of years until soulless, evil parasites realized they could permanently enslave everyone else if they could just get them to agree that they owned the land.
The same applies for my access to resources, if there is no government, and I don't want someone taking my water supply or my produce that I need in order to survive,

Whoa! Not so fast, there. The water supply is something nature provided, and others have just as much right to use as you. What you have produced is not.
I have to secure the land on which such exists,

Nope. Our hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding ancestors did not own land, and were able to keep the produce of their labor just fine. It's only with the advent of significant fixed improvements that landowning emerges.
and typically from the same sort of people that would want to take my wife. My wife, my water, and my crops are all claimed by me and they are kept from others by my ability to defend them. Hence, they are mine and they are privately retained.

Your wife is there by her consent and choice (I hope; though on form one can't be sure...); your crops are not something anyone else would otherwise have had; "your" water is different. It was already there, ready to be used, with no help from you. Forcibly depriving others of it therefore makes you a thief.
Sure I do, I claim it and if they try to take it, I will shoot them.

That's just brute, animal possession, not a right.
If they are willing to give me a % of their produce and their loyalty, I won't shoot them and we can have a very pleasant relationship where I offer them a home,

No you don't. They could have had a home there if you had never existed. All YOU do is DEPRIVE them of a home unless they meet your extortion demands.
the ability to produce crops,

No you don't. They would have been perfectly able to produce crops if you had never existed. All YOU do is DEPRIVE them of their ability to produce crops unless they meet your extortion demands.
and life where they can raise their families in safety without fear of the sort of aimless marauders they once were.

They weren't marauders and you know it. They just wanted to exercise the liberty to earn a living from what nature provided, a liberty of which you forcibly deprive them.
Its quite simple really.

It is indeed: in your role as "landowner, " you are a thief, an extortionist, depriving others of what they would otherwise have unless they pay you for not harming them.
#14905289
Truth To Power wrote:Victoribus Spolia wrote:

No, it merely OPINES that it is....

Blackstone is generally considered quite authoritative, and it seems unlikely that more than one king would bother to legally abolish something that did not legally exist....

Yes, well, maybe the practice was made up to advance republican causes, and maybe it has been erased from history to whitewash landowners' evil.


Fake News huh? :lol:

you got caught with your bullshit yet again, just man up and take it.


Truth To Power wrote: Feudal societies don't develop; they're stagnant, for reasons already explained. They only evolve into something more advanced, typically monarchy....


No, of course they didn't. The Renaissance resulted from the decline of feudalism and re-emergence of republican government based on recovery of classical knowledge (especially land taxation in Venice), the Crusades, and the emergence of the middle class due to the increase in wages and crash of land rents caused by the Black Death...

... Ahistorical codswallop. It is feudalism that prevents economic growth, as it diverts all economic surplus to defense of landholdings, making capital investment impossible.


Not an argument, just dismissals.

Truth To Power wrote:It was the Black Death that raised wages by crashing land rents, leading to the emergence of the middle class.


Please demonstrate this claim with evidence.

Truth To Power wrote:The Black Death proves the Georgist analysis is correct: the inverse relation of population to wages.


Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Truth To Power wrote:No, indisputably. I proved


:lol: Indisputable in your own mind is not indisputable at all.

Your like a little bantam rooster, cocky but amusingly insignificant and nonthreatening....only in this case, in reference to your arguments as opposed to your size.

Truth To Power wrote:Where on earth did you find a woman who was not appalled to be thought of in such terms?


I appropriated her ;) and she is now pregnant with my sixth child.

Truth To Power wrote:Being "forced to share" natural resources with others is the natural state of humanity, and worked for millions of years until soulless, evil parasites realized they could permanently enslave everyone else if they could just get them to agree that they owned the land.


Please prove that this sharing occurred, keep in mind, that living far enough away from each other so that conflicts over competition does not occur does not constitute a relevant argument.

Good luck.

Truth To Power wrote:The water supply is something nature provided, and others have just as much right to use as you. What you have produced is not.


Nature is not a productive agent, nature is just collective resource to be acquired and secured.

Truth To Power wrote:Nope. Our hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding ancestors did not own land, and were able to keep the produce of their labor just fine.


That is because they could wander in voluntary communes on unclaimed land without having to compete for resources, as soon as that came up in history, most nomads turned to private possession. The Mongols are a major example of this.

Truth To Power wrote:Your wife is there by her consent and choice (I hope; though on form one can't be sure...); your crops are not something anyone else would otherwise have had; "your" water is different. It was already there, ready to be used, with no help from you. Forcibly depriving others of it therefore makes you a thief.


I am speaking of a stateless society, my ability to keep her from raping bandits and that I am not obligated to give her is grounded in my ability to defend my claim.

Also, nature produces "crops" and permaculture has proven that the line between agriculture and natural forestry is blurry at best. sustainable agriculture is the management of what nature already would produce to make it more productive, just as damming up a creek can make water usage more efficient. This argument of yours is non-sense.

If my resource usage is threatened by others, I am obligated to defend it for the sake of my survival and my family. Your theory ignores scarcity almost entirely.

Furthermore, you have never, and could never, provide an ethical argument, a moral argument, from plain syllogistic reasoning, to prove that my position is theft and that land and water, etc., is de facto collectively owned. Feel free to prove otherwise so I can destroy your position as I have been quite easily doing for several days now.

Truth To Power wrote:No you don't. They could have had a home there if you had never existed. All YOU do is DEPRIVE them of a home unless they meet your extortion demands.


I don't owe them a home and they are a threat if they challenge my resources that are allocated for my family's security. They are strangers and I will deprive them of their lives unless they make a deal or move on.

Truth To Power wrote:They weren't marauders and you know it.


WTF? its my hypothetical and they were marauders if I say they were marauders.

Truth To Power wrote:They just wanted to exercise the liberty to earn a living from what nature provided, a liberty of which you forcibly deprive them.


They are eating food and drinking water that could have been saved for my own later consumption, that in times of famine, may have come in handy. By graciously allowing them access to my resources and under my protection I actually expect very little, which will then in turn make all of us more productive and more secure. Your sentimentalism and unhinged hatred of land-owners is clouding your judgment....its starting to sound like insanity.

Truth To Power wrote:depriving others of what they would otherwise have unless they pay you for not harming them.


Yes, if they stole from me without me defending my resources, they would have what I would already have had. :eh:

If I never existed, they could have just appropriated the same resources and would have entered into the same dilemma once someone else came along to take it.

Your delusions amount to a naive mommy lecturing the world "Why can't you just share the resources?" Your view is childish and foolish, it ignores scarcity, population, and depravity, which in combination, does not allow for your fantasies. That is why Georgists are not libertarians in any sense, they are psuedo-communists in their needing a state, they are weak.
#14905980
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Fake News huh? :lol:

It's been known to happen. Like all that silly stuff in the Bible...
you got caught with your bullshit yet again, just man up and take it.

Ah, no. The fact that no one has yet verified historical documentation of droit du seigneur does not mean it never happened. What were you expecting? The journal entries of illiterate peasant girls? Salacious accounts by lecherous landowners?
Not an argument, just dismissals.

That's just baldly false. I provided facts and logic to support my statements. You did not.
Please demonstrate this claim with evidence.

"Historian Walter Scheidel contends that waves of plague following the initial outbreak of the Black Death had a leveling effect that changed the ratio of land to labor, reducing the value of the former while boosting that of the latter, which lowered economic inequality by making landowners and employers less well off while improving the lot of the workers"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequen ... lack_Death

"As the Black Death swung the balance in the peasant’s favor, the literate elite bemoaned a disintegrating social and economic order. William of Dene, John Langland, John Gower, and others polemically evoked nostalgia for the peasant who knew his place, worked hard, demanded little, and squelched pride while they condemned their present in which land lay unplowed and only an immediate pang of hunger goaded a lazy, disrespectful, grasping peasant to do a moment’s desultory work (Hatcher, 1994).
Moralizing exaggeration aside, the rural worker indeed demanded and received higher payments in cash (nominal wages) in the plague’s aftermath. Wages in England rose from twelve to twenty—eight percent from the 1340s to the 1350s and twenty to forty percent from the 1340s to the 1360s. Immediate hikes were sometimes more drastic. During the plague year (1348—49) at Fornham All Saints (Suffolk), the lord paid the pre—plague rate of 3d. per acre for more half of the hired reaping but the rest cost 5d., an increase of 67 percent. The reaper, moreover, enjoyed more and larger tips in cash and perquisites in kind to supplement the wage. At Cuxham (Oxfordshire), a plowman making 2s. weekly before the plague demanded 3s. in 1349 and 10s. in 1350 (Farmer, 1988; Farmer, 1991; West Suffolk Record Office 3/15.7/2.4; Harvey, 1965)."


https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economi ... ack-death/
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Wrong again, O ignarus est res oeconomica. Post hoc ergo propter scissum est in lege.
Indisputable in your own mind is not indisputable at all.

But indisputable in fact and logic is, and that is what I proved. I PROVED TO YOU that YOU WERE OBJECTIVELY WRONG when you claimed that no one can be deprived of something that does not belong to them. Forcibly depriving someone of their liberty to breathe the earth's atmosphere deprives them of something that never belonged to them, just as forcibly depriving them of their liberty to use the land nature provided for all does.
Your like a little bantam rooster, cocky but amusingly insignificant and nonthreatening....only in this case, in reference to your arguments as opposed to your size.

:lol: I have demolished and humiliated you with indisputable facts and irrefutable logic, and you know it. No matter how you deny, dismiss, disdain or distort, I HAVE OWNED YOU. And you know it.
I appropriated her ;) and she is now pregnant with my sixth child.

Sounds very much like you are a devout Muslim: forcibly raping, enslaving and impregnating non-Muslim women, then forcing them to raise the children to be more raping, enslaving Muslims.
Please prove that this sharing occurred, keep in mind, that living far enough away from each other so that conflicts over competition does not occur does not constitute a relevant argument.

:lol: Are you serious? You really don't know the fact that hunter-gatherers and nomadic herders never claim individual ownership of land, and share access to natural resources among the members of their communities? Here:

"How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of the Earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clear and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The perfumed flowers are our sisters, the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and the man, all belong to the same family." -- Chief Seattle

Your ignorance of facts known to every school child is not an argument, sorry.
Nature is not a productive agent,

<yawn> That will be news to all the people and animals who live off what it produces...
nature is just collective resource to be acquired and secured.

Your greedy, rapacious, thieving mentality does not alter the fact that nature produces much of those resources through processes of fertility.
That is because they could wander in voluntary communes on unclaimed land without having to compete for resources,

They had to compete with predators, and with adjacent communities.
as soon as that came up in history, most nomads turned to private possession. The Mongols are a major example of this.

No, that's just baldly false as a matter of objective fact. Nomads never claimed private ownership of land until they were converted to settled agricultural life, and the need for property in fixed improvements made it expedient.
I am speaking of a stateless society, my ability to keep her from raping bandits and that I am not obligated to give her is grounded in my ability to defend my claim.

Your ability is grounded in your ability? Blatant circularity.
Also, nature produces "crops"

Thanks for admitting that you were wrong, and nature DOES produce.
and permaculture has proven that the line between agriculture and natural forestry is blurry at best.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you planted and cultivated the crop or just gathered what nature produced. It's still a product of labor that others would not otherwise have had.
sustainable agriculture is the management of what nature already would produce to make it more productive,

Nope. Flat wrong, as usual. Sustainable agriculture is production of crops by human labor in a way that does not deplete natural fertility.
just as damming up a creek can make water usage more efficient.

A dam is a product of labor that can make water into a product of labor. But the flow of water was already there.
This argument of yours is non-sense.

No, that is just another of your unsupported dismissals of facts and logic you cannot answer. The truth is, I have identified the relevant self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications.
If my resource usage is threatened by others, I am obligated to defend it for the sake of my survival and my family.

Garbage. That is simply a declaration that you intend to steal from others to satisfy your own greed. There is no such "obligation." If your "resource usage" deprives others of the resources they would otherwise be at liberty to use, and you persist in depriving them of same by force, you are physically attacking them, and trying to kill or enslave them by violent, aggressive, physical coercion, same as any other evil criminal greedy for unearned wealth.
Your theory ignores scarcity almost entirely.

More of your absurd garbage. My factual analysis identifies the difference between scarcity of resources and scarcity for some due to stealing by others.
Furthermore, you have never, and could never, provide an ethical argument, a moral argument, from plain syllogistic reasoning, to prove that my position is theft and that land and water, etc., is de facto collectively owned.

I have stated repeatedly that as all valid ownership is founded in an act of production, and land cannot be produced, there can be no valid ownership of land. As for your position, I have ALREADY proved that it is theft, just as forcibly depriving people of atmospheric air to breathe unless they pay rent for it would be theft.
Feel free to prove otherwise so I can destroy your position as I have been quite easily doing for several days now.

:lol: :lol: :lol: You have not come close to refuting a single statement I have made, other than disputing droit du seigneur, which is, as you know, entirely incidental to my argument.

In argument, you are a joke. Perhaps your wife's subservience and the brain-fog of your philosophy professors has convinced you that you are some sort of ubermensch, but the reality is that you are far from holding your own in any discussion with me.
I don't owe them a home

Who said you did? What you owe them is not STEALING their liberty to make a home of their own on the land nature provided for all.
and they are a threat if they challenge my resources that are allocated for my family's security.

"Allocated" are they?? Allocated how? By whom? You??

No, pal, YOU are the threat, because YOU intend to use VIOLENCE to deprive them of what they would otherwise have, to inflict injustice upon them. They are no threat to you. They are not proposing to deprive you of anything you have earned or produced. YOU are the one who intends to use force to deprive them of their liberty to sustain themselves unless they meet your extortion demands. YOU are the bad guy. Not them.
They are strangers and I will deprive them of their lives unless they make a deal or move on.

Right: you are a murderous thief, an extortionist, a threat and danger to everyone you come into contact with, a greedy, evil sociopath whose modus operandi is by definition evil: deliberately abrogating others' rights without making just compensation, with intent to inflict injustice on the victims.

"For greed [unfortunately mistranslated as 'love of money'] is the root of all manner of evil." -- 1 Timothy 6:10
WTF? its my hypothetical and they were marauders if I say they were marauders.

Wrong again. What you DESCRIBED was not marauders, they were just people wanting to sustain themselves using the land nature provided, and which they would have been at liberty to use if you did not forcibly deprive them of it. They were not proposing to steal your wife or anything you earned by productive labor. YOU were the threat, to THEM, because you claimed to own, and to have a right forcibly to deprive them of, what they would otherwise have been at liberty to use.

YOU ARE THE BAD GUY IN THIS SCENARIO, NOT THEM.
They are eating food and drinking water that could have been saved for my own later consumption,

But only food and water they would otherwise have been at liberty to use, and NOT food or water that YOU PRODUCED and therefore rightly own.
that in times of famine, may have come in handy.

To you, but not to them??? That is the evil that landowner greed always implies: to kill -- to MURDER -- others by depriving them of the means to live that nature provided, unless they meet the landowner's extortion demands.
By graciously allowing them access to my resources

YOUR resources, you greedy, thieving blowhard?? YOUR resources?? What effrontery! They're not "your" resources just because you threaten others with grievous bodily harm if they don't pay you for them, any more than it would be "your" atmosphere or "your" sun if you made the same sort of extortion threats to stop others from breathing or enjoying daylight.
and under my protection I actually expect very little,

:lol: "Protection" is it? Don't make me laugh. That is the definition of a protection racket, pal: the only thing they would need "protection" against is YOU.
which will then in turn make all of us more productive and more secure.

Garbage. It won't make YOU more productive, any more than thieving has ever made any landowner more productive. YOU don't have to produce a thing: you are just going to TAKE what others produce and contribute nothing in return.
Your sentimentalism

Only a sociopath would claim love of justice is sentimentalism.
and unhinged hatred of land-owners

I hate evil, which is the appropriate object of hatred. Landowners are just the perpetrators and beneficiaries of the greatest evil that has ever existed.
is clouding your judgment....its starting to sound like insanity.

Oh, really? That's pretty rich coming from a guy who thinks some "Farnham's Freehold"-esque feudal cult is an economic and ethical ideal.
Yes, if they stole from me without me defending my resources,

They are not proposing to steal from you, just use what nature provided for all. Which YOU intend forcibly to steal from THEM. As I ALREADY PROVED TO YOU.
they would have what I would already have had.

GARBAGE. The only way you could already "have" the land is by depriving others of it.
If I never existed, they could have just appropriated the same resources and would have entered into the same dilemma once someone else came along to take it.

It's only a dilemma if someone intends forcibly to take from others what they have not earned.
Your delusions amount to a naive mommy lecturing the world "Why can't you just share the resources?"

The final rhetorical resort of the evil is to rationalize their evil by accusing the good of being "naive."
Your view is childish and foolish,

Says the clown who is proud to have "appropriated" his wife....
it ignores scarcity,

Baldly false. I just, unlike you, know that scarcity is not relieved by forcibly inflicting it on others for one's own unearned profit.
population,

Says the clown who thinks a 99% reduction in human population is a consummation devoutly to be wished, in order to improve the stock.
and depravity,

Says the clown who epitomizes the depravity of the greediest, most vicious thieves who ever lived.
which in combination, does not allow for your fantasies.

Another of your unsupported claims.
That is why Georgists are not libertarians in any sense,

I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist. I have allowed you to use the term unchallenged because I knew you would refuse to use accurate and correct terms.
they are psuedo-communists

:lol: MARX HIMSELF called George's views, "capitalism's last ditch."

You are making a fool of yourself. But that's OK. I am here to help you.
in their needing a state,

Unlike you, mature, thoughtful people understand that states reliably out-compete non-states because JUSTICE is better than INJUSTICE.
they are weak.

Ah. Your actual argument, at last: might makes right.
#14906916
Zamuel wrote:Image

Zam :p

<yawn> You know you have no facts or logic to offer, so you turn off your brain. Simple.

My statement was the literal truth. Landowning -- landowner privilege -- has unjustly harmed, enslaved and killed more people than any other evil that has ever existed, including war (which has almost always been fought over landowner privilege).
#14906921
Truth To Power wrote:<yawn> You know you have no facts or logic to offer, so you turn off your brain. Simple.

Feudalism is where your "landowning" took root, certainly had inherent faults. But it bred the species up to the point where specialization and industrialization became possible. Progress always has a price. If you really don't like it, smash your toilet, toss out your coffee maker, and unplug the fridge. Oh yeah, lose the light bulbs while your at it. Go live in a cave somewhere without any toilet paper. - Facts and Logic ... nuff said? :p

Zam
#14907184
Rancid wrote:Capitalism is the best thing that ever happened to me.

To the privileged generally. Sure. And your point would be....?
Zamuel wrote:Feudalism is where your "landowning" took root, certainly had inherent faults. But it bred the species up to the point where specialization and industrialization became possible. Progress always has a price. If you really don't like it, smash your toilet, toss out your coffee maker, and unplug the fridge. Oh yeah, lose the light bulbs while your at it. Go live in a cave somewhere without any toilet paper. - Facts and Logic ... nuff said?

The only facts I see there are that feudalism had inherent faults and progress has a price. And I see no logic at all.

'Nuff said?
#14907189
Truth To Power wrote:The only facts I see there are that feudalism had inherent faults and progress has a price. And I see no logic at all.

'Nuff said?

No ... tell us about how you condemn land ownership and the progress it instituted, BUT, don't mind the technological advantages and personal privileges that it has provided you. Toilet papers cheap, live a little!

Zam :lol:
#14907361
Zamuel wrote:No ... tell us about how you condemn land ownership and the progress it instituted, BUT, don't mind the technological advantages and personal privileges that it has provided you.

<yawn> Tell us about how you condemn slavery and the progress it instituted, BUT, don't mind the technological advantages and personal privileges that it has provided you.

So much for your "facts" and "logic."
Rancid wrote:Capitalism is the best thing that ever happened to me.

Yes, well, slavery was often the best thing that ever happened to slave owners, too.
#14907381
Zamuel wrote:
No ... tell us about how you condemn land ownership and the progress it instituted, BUT, don't mind the technological advantages and personal privileges that it has provided you.”

Truth To Power wrote:<yawn> Tell us about how you condemn slavery and the progress it instituted, BUT, don't mind the technological advantages and personal privileges that it has provided you.

That's so lame ... Real Dodgers can do so much better than that.

Image

Tasty stuff! You're never gonna make the team with such poor excuses in response.

As for slavery, yes we condemn it and renounce any technological advantages and personal privileges that it has provided ... not sure I can think of any right off the bat.
:mrt: Noemon Edit: Rule 2
Zam
#14907461
Zamuel wrote:That's so lame ... Real Dodgers can do so much better than that.
Tasty stuff! You're never gonna make the team with such poor excuses in response.

<yawn> Speaking of lame, your silly pictures aren't exactly relevant facts or logic.

And what was your poor excuse for not providing any such, again...?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you have no excuse.
As for slavery, yes we condemn it and renounce any technological advantages and personal privileges that it has provided ... not sure I can think of any right off the bat.

All that emerged from slave-owning societies, of course.

Or are you willing to concede that a technological advance or personal privilege that emerged from a landowning society was not thereby "instituted by landowning" or landowners? In which case your original request that I renounce advantages and privileges that landowning "instituted" is seen to be (surprise!) disingenuous and fallacious. You can't have it both ways, sorry. Little thing called, "logic," which you could Google to advantage.
:mrt: fool.

<yawn> Right back atcha, chump. Landowning never provided a single technological advantage or personal privilege, except for landowners.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 18 Apr 2018 23:54, edited 1 time in total.
#14907479
Truth To Power wrote:relevant facts or logic. And what was your poor excuse for not providing any such, again...?

... already did that ... Recall that landownership / feudalism allowed the population growth that enabled progress to industrialization. A vital link in the chain leading to modern society. Slavery on the other hand was a regression to barbarity, it added nothing positive to the rise of humanity.

Maybe Mr. T's ( :mrt: ) attitude can be attributed to it (indirectly). I guess maybe "The -A- Team" was before your time... He called everybody he respected enough to speak to "fool." Good show, but you probably wouldn't have liked it, hard on delicate sensibilities I suppose.

Rancid wrote:You're so naive. Money is #1 on the list for sure.

Yep ... good ole "root of all evil" ... We'd still be swapping fish for beer without it.

Zam :cheers:
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 21
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession ... This is co[…]

The UCJ just ordered Israel to allow food aid . […]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]