|Subject:||RE: [socialcredit] land, money|
|Date:||Wednesday, March 22, 2006 08:38:27 (-0800)|
|From:||thomsonhiyu <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|In reply to:||Message 3683 (written by Jeffery Smith)|
thomsonhiyu wrote:> 'Security'? I'll 'own' MY land, thank you very
(Jeff Smith replied;-) So say the Latin American plantation owners who
murder nuns and such.
(Joe responds:-) If you want to get into the perpetrators of nun 'body
counts', I'll see your 'nuns' and raise you some. What can broadly be
called 'Bolshevism', (of which the 'Georgist' single-tax ideas are
merely one of many 'means' towards the same overall 'end'), has sent
more 'black Mariahs' to meet their Heavenly Father, worldwide, than any
group of Latin American, nunicidal plantation owners could even imagine.
(Jeff continues:-) As for evictions by public authorities, evictions
occur by private
(Joe replies:-) But when I 'own' my 'own' land, i.e., I am a tenant-for
life on it; there are only two legal ways I can be 'evicted'. The Crown
can 'expropriate' it, in the greater 'public' interest if there clearly
is one; in which case the Crown must compensate me fairly for my loss.
Either in mutually agreed upon alternate 'land', or an acceptable
evaluation in 'money'. Subject to as 'independent' an adjudication as
our whole framework of law regarding 'individual' rights can provide, if
there is dispute over what 'fair' compensation actually is.
Or I can be 'taxed' off it. Where the property tax rises to such
onerous levels that I am no longer able to afford to be there, and
pursue what I want to do on my 'own' land. My 'freedom' has thus been
removed, for it is the very concept of the "individual's" right to own
property that is the basis of much of that 'freedom'.
And to get back to those 'nuns', it might be interesting to note that
Douglas, an Anglican, gave praise to the Roman Catholic Church for its
defence of the right to own property. A right which your Thomas
Jefferson, under Masonic influence, was said to have removed from the
original Preamble to your Declaration of Independence, and replaced with
the meaningless ambiguity, "the pursuit of happiness".
(Jeff continues:-) Remember, to own you must owe - true
etymologically and ethically.
(Joe replies:-) You seem to be implying that there is such a thing as a
'debt' in nature. Would that be a correct assumption?