| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] "The Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th November | | Date: | Sunday, November 20, 2005 16:49:00 (+0000) | | From: | Kenneth Palmerton <kenpalmerton @................uk>
|
In-Reply-To: <D00BBA3D-5339-4939-AAAE-C8DC3650727E@oxfordshirecommunitylandtru-
sts.org.uk>
Hi Jock.
I am sure that you have discovered by now that there are fundamentalists
in this world :-(
Despite the fact that the followers of Douglas, and the followers of
George both mount the same argument about the rights of the community to
benefit from what they create out of natural monopolies. Land and money.
There is not even now, after how many years ? a truce, recognising that
one is an economic argument, and the other is a political one.
As an individual I have struggled with trying to understand why the big
argument :-(
Accusing them of merely worshipping at the feet of their particular Guru
is a charge that gets us nowhere.
So I have wondered if it stems from the successful campaign by the
powerful to divide the study of economics from the study and practice of
Politics ? I am sure that you know that these two sides of the same coin
were once considered one, and studied as such.
It was called Political Economy.
Since the 1930s, and Robbins almost single handed victory, the idea of
morality polluting the "pure" science of figures, has been forbidden
study. All that concerns economists now is mathematics.
And we get nowhere :-(
Ken.
-------- Original Message --------
X-Envelope-From:
socialcredit-return-3115-kenpalmerton=cix.co.uk@elistas.comReceived: from
q43.elistas.net (q43.elistas.net [216.66.20.150]) by
mta02.mx.cix.co.uk (8.13.4/CIX/8.13.4) with SMTP id jAIIlwKC002853
for <kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:47:58 GMTReceived:
(qmail 24083 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2005 20:07:09 +0100Received:
from mail.e-listas.com (66.7.164.206) by 192.168.0.152 with EMQP; 18 Nov
2005 20:07:09 +0100Mailing-List: socialcredit@elistas.com
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Post: <mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com>
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
List-Help: <mailto:socialcredit-help@elistas.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-subscribe@elistas.com>
Delivered-To: list socialcredit@elistas.com
Delivered-To: moderator for socialcredit@elistas.com
Received: (qmail 15138 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2005 19:26:15 +0100
Received: from unknown (HELO brookes.ac.uk) (161.73.1.23)
by mail.egrupos.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2005 19:26:15 +0100
Received: from mail.jcsolutions.co.uk (jc041203.brookes.ac.uk
[161.73.41.203]) by brookes.ac.uk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
jAIIUerk015324 for <socialcredit@elistas.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:30:40
GMTReceived: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by mail.jcsolutions.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5EA900A7
for <socialcredit@elistas.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:28:45 +0000
(GMT)Received: from mail.jcsolutions.co.uk ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with
ESMTP id 27587-01 for <socialcredit@elistas.com>;
Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:28:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [161.73.41.200] (jc041200.brookes.ac.uk [161.73.41.200])
by mail.jcsolutions.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998E4900A6
for <socialcredit@elistas.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:28:42 +0000
(GMT)Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
In-Reply-To: <20051118165824.81999.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20051118165824.81999.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id:
<D00BBA3D-5339-4939-AAAE-C8DC3650727E@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.
org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jock Coats <jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:30:34 +0000
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at jcsolutions.co.uk
X-MailScanner-Information: Oxford Brookes University MailScanner
X-MailScanner: Clean
X-MailScanner-From: jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "The Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th
November 2005
X-Envelope-To: kenpalmerton@cixcouk.cix.co.uk
X-UIDL: _ts.fHifDB.mta02.mx
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 kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message