| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Jock Coats: Georgist Fallacies | | Date: | Sunday, November 20, 2005 20:05:44 (-0700) | | From: | Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm @.........com>
|
Yes Bill - and what's wrong with all that (apart from the emotionally toned
wording you use)?
Martin Hattersley
1970-10123-99 St.,
EDMONTON AB CANADA
Phone (780)423-4081;Fax(780)425-5247
e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <lwside1@yahoogroups.com>; <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 8:23 AM
Subject: [socialcredit] Replying to Jock Coats: Georgist Fallacies
> The Georgist scheme:-
>
> 1. There is such a thing as "site value" which may be
> objectively ascertained by the relevant politburo.
>
> 2. The private possession of "site value" confers the
> power to collect "rent" from the public to the
> personal benefit of the monopolist which is unearned.
>
> 3. That "rent" is subsumed within income to
> improvements such that income to improvements includes
> an element of "rent" to "site value" that is unearned.
>
> 4. That "rent" beyond that which is actually
> collected by the monopolist in the form of money may
> be objectively imputed to a particular parcel by the
> relevant politburo, even though there may be no
> improvements or regardless of the extent of
> improvements to the particular parcel.
>
> 5. Inasmuch as "rent" is unearned by the monopolist,
> it is justifiably confiscated in the name of the
> public for the "benefit of all," as determined by the
> relevant politburo both to its collection and
> disposition.
>
> 6. That both realized and imputed "rent" to be
> confiscated in its totality in the form of money,
> regardless whether or not the monopolist possessor of
> "site value" has collected any money from his parcel,
> or has any money at all.
>
> 7. All taxation to be abolished; government including
> the relevant politburo to be funded in its entirety
> from confiscated "rent."
>
> 8. After government has taken its cut off the top of
> the confiscated "rent" for "legitimate" expenditure in
> the determination of the relevant politburo, the
> remainder to be paid to the public in equal shares as
> its "dividend."
>
> Sieg Heil!
> -
>
>
> --- Jock Coats
> <jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> I didn't realise Social Crediters approved of
> monopolies. I'm clearly in the wrong place. Sorry
> for disturbing you all.
>
>
> On 19 Nov 2005, at 14:08, William B. Ryan wrote:
>
> And your reflexive rather than thinking response is to
> address Bierce's "issue with land" through taxation.
>
> Brief comments inserted:-
>
> "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..."
> ---------------------------------
> [Comment] Because there is a logical conclusion does
> not mean it will necessarily obtain. It is pure
> fallacy to think that it will.
>
> One possible use of one's dividend is to loaf. If
> everybody loafed society would no doubt collapse.
> Therefore, we will not pay a dividend, but keep
> everybody in servitude. Sieg Heil.
>
> Fallacy, or "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."
> ---------------------------------
> [Comment] Which proves nothing. There are laws of
> trespass and there are laws of trespass. My landlord
> is guilty of trespass if he enters my home in
> violation of the terms of our lease. The law of
> "right of way" allows me to cross the property of
> another, with or without his permission, if that is
> required to enter and exit my property. In Texas we
> have something called the law of "adverse possession"
> or "squatters rights," where I may acquire the
> ownership of the landed property of another, if I use
> it without his permission.
>
> Historical anecdote from the Nineteenth Century: In
> Texas and New Mexico there were organized wars between
> farmers and ranchers. The farmers would erect barbed
> wire fences; the ranchers would tear them down. It was
> a shooting war where many farmers and ranchers were
> gunned down.
>
> The farmers took control of the legislature in Texas;
> they passed a law that made it a felony with severe
> penalties to be found with a pair of wire cutters on
> one's person. The law remained on the books until
> five or six years ago, though to my knowledge not
> enforced since the Nineteenth Century.
>
> In New Mexico the ranchers took control and passed a
> law that said, "open range."
>
> While in the Air Force stationed in New Mexico, I
> would frequently go on explorations with friends. I
> once found an eleven thousand year old Clovis point.
> The sand dunes are adjacent to ancient riverbeds,
> along which the natives would camp.
>
> We frequently encountered gates secured by link
> chains. The rule was you could cut a link with bolt
> cutters, replacing it with a padlock, and pass
> through. Similarly with barbed wire fences; you could
> cut them, but were expected to mend them securely and
> properly with pliers as you passed through.
>
> That would be strictly illegal in Texas.
> -
>
> <jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
> -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.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 hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/175 - Release Date: 18/11/2005
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/175 - Release Date: 18/11/2005
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message