| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] "The Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th November 2005 | | Date: | Saturday, November 19, 2005 07:43:00 (-0500) | | From: | Daniel Morin <dan @........com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3116 (written by Jim) |
> And certainly private/exclusive ownership is not the
problem, because the opposite is the road to tyranny.
Amen!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim [mailto:jschroeder@shaw.ca]
> Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:28 AM
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "The Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th
> November 2005
>
>
> Hi Jock:
>
> You said:
>
> "So, do tell, how do you address Ambrose Bierce's issue with land:"
>
> I can easily rebuke this logic. Food is finite. The theory that food is
> subject to private control is the modern foundation of society.
> Carried to
> its logical conclusion it means that some have the right to
> prevent others
> from eating. If A, B and C have food, there will be none for D,
> E, F, and
> G.
>
> Do you think this logic is faulty?
>
> Obviously Mr. Bierce had never seen high rise apartments. In pretty much
> every place on earth there is a vacancy rate, and all that is
> seperating the
> homeless from a vacant place to live is the money necessary to
> rent/buy the
> place(unless they simply choose to be homeless, which means you
> can lead a
> horse to water, but you can't force him to drink). Most of the land on
> earth is uninhabited. The fact that land is finite is not the
> problem. All
> matter is finite. And certainly private/exclusive ownership is not the
> problem, because the opposite is the road to tyranny.
>
> Take care,
>
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jock Coats" <jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 11:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "The Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th
> November 2005
>
>
> > So, do tell, how do you address Ambrose Bierce's issue with land:
> >
> > "Land, n. A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The
> > theory that land is property subject to private ownership and
> control is
> > the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the
> > superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some
> > have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own
> > implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of
> trespass are
> > enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows
> that if the
> > whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will
> be no place
> > for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist."
> >
> > Without some kind of coercive tactic? LVT is not merely about
> taxing to
> > raise money, it is about ensuring efficient use of land (that's
> all land
> > in the economic sense - everything in the material universe that just
> > exists without the efforts of man, labour and capital), curbing the
> > monopolistic tendency of land ownership, creating a mechanism that
> > automatically shifts investment and economic growth from high
> tax areas
> > to low tax areas.
> >
> > I don't see how one can be a "social anything" without
> addressing these
> > massive social issues somehow of how we equitably divide up our planet
> > amongst all the people that share in the birthright that gives.
> >
> > Jock
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18 Nov 2005, at 16:58, William B. Ryan wrote:
> >
> >> From the Draft Social Credit Scheme for Scotland:-
> >> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/scotland.txt
> >>
> >> (10) Taxation of specific articles or
> >> specific forms of property to be abolished.
> >> Any taxation found to be necessary to take
> >> the form either of a flat non-graduated
> >> taxation of net income or a percentage ad
> >> valorem tax upon sales, or both forms of
> >> taxation together.
> >> -
> >>
> >>
> >> --- Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Jock:
> >>
> >> My intention was never to "cow you into submission".
> >> My intention was to explain why you should never tax
> >> an asset. I don't know why you'd need to "let any
> >> steam off" in a Social Credit system, but perhaps if
> >> you have the chance, you could explain it.
> >>
> >> I am also certain that there's no difference in
> >> Douglas' analysis based on what type of tax is used.
> >> Douglas' analysis was based on the fact that there's a
> >> difference between land valued at a certain amount,
> >> and actually having the money. I think Wally
> >> extrapolated on this idea very well.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________
> >> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> >> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this
> list are at
> >> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> >> You're subscribed to this list with the email
> >> jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk
> >> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
> > --
> > Jock Coats, Oxfordshire Community Land Trusts,
> > c/o Wardens' Lodgings, Flat 1e, Block J Morrell Hall,
> > John Garne Way, OXFORD, OX3 0FF
> > Day: +44 1865 483353 Home: +44 1865 485019
> > Mobile: +44 7769 695767
> > jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk
> > (or) jock.coats@oclt.org.uk
> > http://www.oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk/
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > You're subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email dan@danmorin.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message