Pants-of-dog wrote:TTP has weird ideas about what socialists think of land reform.
There are lots of different kinds of land reform. Socialists typically just want to convert land from private into state or collective property. Unlike the land reform I advocate, such socialistic land reform doesn't achieve justice, doesn't enable efficient productive use, and doesn't restore people's rights to liberty.
According to him, Allende never instituted land reforms as part of his socialist government.
No; according to me, Allende's land reform was typically socialist: it converted land from private into state or collective property, did not restore people's rights to liberty, and did not encourage efficient productive use. It also turned into nationalization/collectivization of non-land capital goods and the fruits of private labor.
TheRedBaron wrote:I do not equate land and production equipment.
Socialism does.
However, land can be capitalized by means of its rent and the rate of interest of capital.
Equivocation fallacy. Being "capitalized" does not turn land into a product of labor, sorry.
From a material point of view, nobody will deny this statement.
Actually, socialists and capitalists (especially neoclassical economists) both deny it.
However, I do not understand why there would be a compelling relation between land and the personal wellbeing, happiness and autonomy.
Because you deny, within your own mind, one or more of the facts that: land is not a product of human labor; that we need to use it to sustain our lives; that we are naturally at liberty to use it for that purpose; and that appropriating it as property, whether private, state, or collective, forcibly removes that natural liberty.
Besides, this is not an important topic in the economic theory.
Which economic theory? The socialist and capitalist ones that have all proven themselves incapable of understanding or predicting actual economic events?
And since economists are not idiots, there is undoubtedly a good reason for that.
Indeed. As Peter de Vries so astutely reported, "Whenever I see something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, I know there must be a damn good reason for it." Economists are certainly not idiots. They are, however, liars, virtually to a one, as proved in books such as
Debunking Economics, Economyths, and The Corruption of Economics. They choose to be liars for a reason that economists, specifically, consider to be
very good: financial incentives. They know that they will obtain higher positions and incomes if they chant whatever lies are most favorable to the financial interests of the privileged, so they chant those lies. See
Inside Job.
For me these three points are controversial, and I tend to disagree with them.
But cannot actually offer an argument against them. Check.
Again, mainstream economists do not advocate these social reforms.
Because they are servants of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.
They are so drastic, that they may well destabilize the economic system,
Their absence has done that quite well already, thank you very much.
and deteriorate our standard of living.
They would dramatically improve the standard of living of everyone but a tiny minority of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.
Imho we must concentrate our efforts on furthering personal wellbeing and autonomy, in a step-by-step and reversible approach.
That is not possible in the absence of the reforms I've proposed, for the reasons I have given. More particularly, the Henry George Theorem shows why anything you try to do to improve personal well-being and autonomy will benefit no one but landowners.