|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] land, money|
|Date:||Thursday, March 23, 2006 08:53:55 (-0800)|
|From:||Jeffery Smith <jjs @.........org>
|In reply to:||Message 3687 (written by thomsonhiyu)|
On Mar 22, 2006, at 8:38 AM, thomsonhiyu wrote:
> 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'),
Called by those who have little use for accuracy.
> has sent more 'black Mariahs' to meet their Heavenly Father,
> worldwide, than any group of Latin American, nunicidal plantation
> owners could even imagine.
For those who need the truth, Kerensky was not a Bolshevik but a
Georgist and suffered for it. At the same time, Lloyd George was a
Georgist and lost to selfish landowners in the UK. In Mexico, Madero
was a Georgist and was murdered by the landowners. Between the wars,
Budapest and elsewhere in Central Europe, localities elected Georgist
reformers who were booted out, sometimes violently, by a coalition of
landowners and communists.
> when I 'own' my 'own' land, i.e., I am a tenant-for life on it;
You do that where there are no other humans. Rights don't appear until
other people do. Rights are a way for people to get along. Everyone has
the same right to land. My right does not preclude yours. So, as
population grows, our fair share diminishes - that is, of the surface,
not of the land's value. As population grows, so does the value of
land. So, your share of land goes down, but your share of land value
goes up. You pay higher land dues, but you get back bigger "rent"
> 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,
If you can't afford a pricey location, you're not putting it to its
best use, which is what the site value reflects.
> and pursue what I want to do on my 'own' land.
That's not the only reason. You also can't bury toxins on your own land
either. To live in society, you must respect the rights of your
> My 'freedom' has thus been removed,
Comes from living in crowds. You have a right to ride a horse. Just
don't do it downtown at rush hour. That freedom you've lost, too.
> for it is the very concept of the "individual's" right to own property
> that is the basis of much of that 'freedom'.
True. Yet again, what makes so-called property proper? It's actually
> And to get back to those 'nuns', it might be interesting to note that
> Douglas, an Anglican, gave praise to the Roman Catholic Church
The Church also defrocked a couple Georgists, before recently
criticizing unjust land gobbling in Latin America.
> for its defence of the right to own property.
Mirrored by the dues to owe property.
> A right which your Thomas Jefferson, under Masonic influence,
Perhaps he was not under influence but had chosen that way.
> was said to have removed from the original Preamble to your
> Declaration of Independence, and replaced with the meaningless
Please choose. Either it lacked meaning or had multiple meanings.
> "the pursuit of happiness".
Relevant only for those who seek it.
> You seem to be implying that there is such a thing as a 'debt' in
> nature. Would that be a correct assumption?
No. There is symbiosis (trade). But debt is in society, specifically in
economies, and is partnered by credit.
SMITH, Jeffery J., President, Forum on Geonomics
7536 SE Milwaukie Av, Portland Oregon 97202 USA
503/232-1337; email@example.com; www.geonomics.org
Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve.