Hindsite wrote:Then I suggest you stop being dishonest.
You are aware that I have been honest. Most of what I have said is self-evident and indisputable. You are also aware that HK is not socialist, so public ownership of land is not socialist, yet you claimed that it is. That was disingenuous at best.
I know that i am not a great or good man like Jefferson, but as long as i know I am not breaking any law I am fine with it.
So in your view there was nothing wrong with slavery as long as it was legal?? How do we decide what should be illegal and what should be legal if the only test is whether it already IS legal or illegal?? Your "argument" is self-evidently circular.
I doubt if she understands much about anything political.
OTC, I suspect she is politically astute. It is economics she has no clue about. Like you.
The US government has done a lot of good for the world too. No government has been perfect.
So you agree that there are valid criticisms of the US government, including that it killed and forcibly dispossessed indigenous peoples in order to give ownership of everyone's rights to liberty to non-indigenous landowners. Good.
I still don't see any evil to landowning. It seems good to me.
No doubt slavery also seems good... to the slave owners. As I said, even Aristotle defended it. But it is not so good for the victims, which in the case of landowning is almost everyone.
I see landowning as a lot different than slave owning.
But I have shown that it is not so different.
I am not stealing from anyone.
Yes, of course you are. You are just doing it legally, as slave owners did when slavery was legal.
Everyone has the opportunity in the USA to work hard and buy their own piece of land like i did.
<sigh> As with slavery: having the "opportunity" to work hard and buy permission to exercise your liberty rights from their owners -- i.e., begin deprived of those rights UNLESS you work hard for their owners' unearned benefit -- is not the same as actually having those rights.
As long as it is legal it does not qualify as stealing, since stealing is a crime.
No, that's just the legalistic fallacy, and also circular reasoning. Stealing is defined as taking what is not rightfully yours without permission. That would include others' rights to liberty, whether such taking is legal or not.
Our founding fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution owned land so that is good enough for me.
Most of them also owned slaves. I realize you think there is nothing wrong with participating in slavery, rape, extortion, sexual abuse of children, etc. as long as it is legal. In fact, it was people like you who defended slavery on exactly the same grounds you have claimed justify landowning.
What you believe doesn't really matter unless you can get enough people to amend the Constitution.
Of course that is false, just as it was false about all the abolitionists who failed to free the slaves.
Owning the land does not steal from anyone either, because I am still required to pay taxes on the land to support the community.
If you take $100 from someone's wallet and then give them back $10 for cab fare home, you are still stealing from them. The market value of your land is the exact measure of how much more you can expect to steal from the community by owning the land than you can expect to repay in taxes on it.
We haven't learned how to build houses in the air that are practical for homes.
What a fatuous attempt to evade the facts.
I don't believe that most people want to give up their privacy in their homes just to make sure they are not depriving others the liberty to use it.
You again disingenuously attempt to change the subject from land to homes. Do you think people who live in homes on leased land or in rented apartments do not enjoy privacy? You know very well that is false.
I haven't even heard any facts that make my beliefs false and evil.
Of course you have. Why else would you keep trying to change the subject?
I was just saying your ideas make about as much sense.
But you are aware that is false.
I was buying land, not slaves, so the analogy is in error.
You were buying others' rights to liberty, so the analogy is correct.