| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] "The Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th November 2005 | | Date: | Monday, November 21, 2005 08:30:42 (-0700) | | From: | Jim <jschroeder @....ca>
|
Hi Jock:
You said:
"Yes - I would say that food is not finite by comparison to land.
Many ways exist to improve production of food, but it still relies on someone
giving up land somehow to production (unless we go back to the very successful
hydroponics systems of the Maya and Aztecs who grew theirs largely on
super-fertile rafts in lakes). "
Are you suggesting there's a shortage of food in the Western world?
Sure agricultural land has been decreasing, but productivity on that land
has far outstripped the reduction in land. Where I live, in Alberta,
there's more cattle than humans. You say that food is not "finite by
comparison to land", but something is either finite or it is not, and the logic
Mr. Beirce uses for land could be applied to anything finite. The
truth is that we have so much food that we have to subsidize farmers because
there's so much food that farmers cannot continue to produce at
the world price. Where land prices get expensive (i.e. downtown of
any city) high rise apartments are erected, and quite simply, people are
not homeless because there's no homes for them to live in. Very few places
in the world have a 0% vacancy rate (Ft. McMurray Alberta has one that low
because of the massive syncrude investment).
Further you state:
"And no - the same extension occurs, and when there are overall shortages
we seek to find ways to redistribute where possible, but it is clearly possible,
without such a mechanism for redistribution (the UN Food Program say), for
someone to corner the market in something, destroy it, and render everyone else
starving. That. to me, is not a "social" solution."
I will quote from Douglas' book Social Credit in
response:
Is there a manufacturer in this country, or for that matter in any
other, who is not clamouring to turn out more goods if someone will give him
orders for them? Is there a farmer who is complaining that his land and his
stock are unable to cope with the demands for agricultural produce which pour in
upon him? If so, an explanation as to why nearly three million acres of arable
land have gone back to pasture in the last twelve years, would be interesting.
On
the other hand, it is patent that, in spite of this enormous actual and
potential reservoir of the goods for which mankind has a use, a large proportion
of the population is unable to get at them. What is it, then, which
stands in between this enormous reservoir of supply and the increasing clamour
of the multitudes, able to voice, but unable to satisfy their demand? The answer
is so short as to be almost banal. It is Money. And as we shall
see, the position into which money and the methods by which it is controlled and
manipulated have brought the world, arises, not from any defect or vice
inseparable from money (which is probably one of
the most marvellous and perfect agencies for enabling co-operation, that the
world has ever conceived), but because of the subordination of this powerful
tool to the objective of what it is not unfair to call a hidden
government"
http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/socialcredit/p1c3.htm
And further:
"Yes,
it is. A high rise block is only there because the land owner permitted it
to be there. Saw it as worthwhile developing. "
Why did they see it as worthwhile
developing? Could it be that they were offered enough money to develop
it?
"Many landowners, however, have seen that they do not need to go
to such lengths to increase the value of their land. They merely hold it
out of best use until the price is right (Churchill, that master of tyranny,
called it "waiting for it to ripen"), in the meantime depriving others of its
possible better use."
That's what freedom is all about. If
I own something, then I have the RIGHT to sell it when I want to. The
opposite is tyranny. Why should some government bureaucrat determine when
I should sell something, and I'm sure that will not end with land. Private
ownership is the keystone to democracy. Like I said, people aren't
homeless because there's a lack of homes. People are homeless because they
don't have the MONEY to pay rent or a mortgate (or in extreme cases of mental
illness they choose to remain homeless, which means you can lead a horse to
water, but can't force it to drink).
"Or
are you saying that it's fine to suggest that a citizen of Oxford, England, who
cannot afford a home, should go to Mali where he will get acres a penny?
"
No, I'm saying give the citizen the money
to afford a home. It's really that simple. Forcing the owner of the
home to sell/rent when he doesn't want to is tyranny. Inducing him to sell
it with money is freedom.
"No, enclosure is the road to tyranny as
we are now seeing in parts of the UK."
And all that the homeless are missing in
most cases is the money to afford housing. There is no shortage of
housing/apartments.
"It's
probably not a question for "Social Credit" policy per se - but do you not also
share a revulsion of monopolies? "
Yes, and it is "Social Credit policy" that
leads us to believe that all "productive monopolies" are a result of the
"financial monopoloy". Get rid of the root cause of all monopolies, and
the rest will follow suit.
Take care Jock, and all the best.
I'm sorry you were unable to speak at the conference.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:49
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "The
Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th November 2005
On 19 Nov 2005, at 10:28, Jim wrote:
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?
Yes, and no....:)
Yes - I would say that food is not finite by comparison to land.
Many ways exist to improve production of food, but it still relies on someone
giving up land somehow to production (unless we go back to the very successful
hydroponics systems of the Maya and Aztecs who grew theirs largely on
super-fertile rafts in lakes).
And no - the same extension occurs, and when there are overall shortages
we seek to find ways to redistribute where possible, but it is clearly
possible, without such a mechanism for redistribution (the UN Food Program
say), for someone to corner the market in something, destroy it, and render
everyone else starving. That. to me, is not a "social"
solution.
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.
Yes, it is. A high rise block is only there because the land owner
permitted it to be there. Saw it as worthwhile developing. Many
landowners, however, have seen that they do not need to go to such lengths to
increase the value of their land. They merely hold it out of best use
until the price is right (Churchill, that master of tyranny, called it
"waiting for it to ripen"), in the meantime depriving others of its possible
better use. The way to bring that into its best use for everyone is to
make sure a regime exists to "punish" financially owners that don't.
Or are you saying that it's fine to suggest that a citizen of Oxford,
England, who cannot afford a home, should go to Mali where he will get acres a
penny? Although it is looking increasingly attractive what with all the
authoritarian stuff our current government is imposing...:)
All matter is finite.
All matter? It's about proximity to the need. We all need a
piece of land to live on, even if we are homeless - the sidewalk is such a
piece of land. Food is manufactured. It is, most often, the result of
man applying labour and capital to land (or ocean I guess). And we do
not need "all matter". The key is that land - real land not economic
land in this case - is finite and necessary for life. It has been said
often enough - we only have one planet. You'll have seen those programs
that tell you that if you leave your lights on at night you're one of those
needing the equivalent of five earths or whatever to sustain that way of life
for everyone. That planet is there for us all. You may say that
iron ore is finite. The person that digs out the iron ore and makes an
expensive Ferrari will pay for that extraction to the rest of us, just as the
person who makes the supermini cheapo car. But I don't need any car to
survive, and I don't require it to be made in a specific place.
And certainly private/exclusive ownership is not
the problem, because the opposite is the road to tyranny.
No, enclosure is the road to tyranny as we are now seeing in parts of the
UK.
Anyway - I don't really want to sully the Social Credit list with
Georgism if people don't believe they belong together. Except to say
again, that I just do not believe Douglas was talking of (or perhaps
understanding properly) Georgism. It's not a "capital levy" - it is
capturing the *unearned* increment and owner enjoys by preventing what is
finite being used to its optimum extent for those that need it in that
place.
It's probably not a question for "Social Credit" policy per se - but do
you not also share a revulsion of monopolies? And recognise that
measures need to exist to prevent the exploitation of a monopoly
position. And a natural monopoly on something that everyone needs to
survive is the worst of all.
Cheers,
Jock
Who - unfortunately, has not in the end been able to attend and speak at
said "ownership conference" because of being dependennt on someone else's
grace and favour for my land and home...:(
Take care,
Jim
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:-
(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.
-
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion
topic of this list are
at
--
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion
topic of this list are at
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic
of this list are at
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message