There is a certain joy to be found in the Brobdingnagian (hey, spell check approves!) breadth and depth of stupidity that the Internet sends around the world every day.
The idea that "rent is theft" just boggles the mind. On another note, I've read that the new leader of Argentina is supposedly a libertarian. Is that really the case or just hype?
It’s really just an assertion against the concept of private ownership of - anything, really. Because they claim a right to it. Except anything that might be owned by them. That’s theirs, including their right to what’s yours. It falls apart upon approximately two seconds of reasoned consideration.
Short of an ancap utopia, in the most libertarian vision of limited government, we still need to pay for a national defense, a court system and maybe a dog catcher. Milton Friedman called the Land Value Tax (Henry George’s “Single Tax”) the “least bad tax”. I can support LVT as practical tax reform without embracing Georgist rhetoric about common ownership of the earth.
I'm OK with "usage fee" taxes, which would include some generalized, "everyone pays something" form of taxation to fund the courts, the military, and certain other basic functions of government. With funding and control being as local as possible, e.g. police get paid by local taxes.
Land has no intrinsic value. It is in the development of land, making it potentially useful for something, clearing it, putting in roads for passage of equipment, analysis of mineral or other potential, building of structures, bringing in utilities, etc - that land attains value. And value is an objective assessment, based on what the market will bear. After the hard work of making land "worth" something, this is where socialists step in and say "WE did that". And by saying that, they're implying "We ALLOWED you to do it, therefore, it is as if WE did it."
My observations suggest that throughout history, "socialists" (lazy people incapable of creating anything of value to anyone, who only live to exert control by dividing the existing pie) look at the world as it is today and say "this is enough - let's stop making anything new or nicer, and let's just divide up what we've got right now." Apply this to any good. Housing, healthcare, you name it. It's as good as it ever needs to be, so let's just divide up what there is so everybody gets a fair share.
It buggers the mind. Why would anybody invest in developing anything in a socialist kleptocracy?
It's (obviously and as you know) why socialistic societies are poorer than capitalistic ones.
The newer con is the socializing of profits without socializing risks, excepting the well-connected and other cronies. The latter get the government to socialize their risks by burdening the taxpayers.
The idea that "rent is theft" just boggles the mind. On another note, I've read that the new leader of Argentina is supposedly a libertarian. Is that really the case or just hype?
By all indications, he is, with some ancap mixed in.
The biggest proof for me is that libertarians are denouncing him as "not a real libertarian." ;)
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I appreciate it.
Thank you for reading and interacting. I appreciate it!
These people have listened to John Lennon’s “Imagine” too many times.
It’s really just an assertion against the concept of private ownership of - anything, really. Because they claim a right to it. Except anything that might be owned by them. That’s theirs, including their right to what’s yours. It falls apart upon approximately two seconds of reasoned consideration.
Of course. Rules for thee, but not for meeee.
Two seconds is more time than they devote to reasoned consideration of... well, most of their blather.
Short of an ancap utopia, in the most libertarian vision of limited government, we still need to pay for a national defense, a court system and maybe a dog catcher. Milton Friedman called the Land Value Tax (Henry George’s “Single Tax”) the “least bad tax”. I can support LVT as practical tax reform without embracing Georgist rhetoric about common ownership of the earth.
I'm OK with "usage fee" taxes, which would include some generalized, "everyone pays something" form of taxation to fund the courts, the military, and certain other basic functions of government. With funding and control being as local as possible, e.g. police get paid by local taxes.
Land has no intrinsic value. It is in the development of land, making it potentially useful for something, clearing it, putting in roads for passage of equipment, analysis of mineral or other potential, building of structures, bringing in utilities, etc - that land attains value. And value is an objective assessment, based on what the market will bear. After the hard work of making land "worth" something, this is where socialists step in and say "WE did that". And by saying that, they're implying "We ALLOWED you to do it, therefore, it is as if WE did it."
My observations suggest that throughout history, "socialists" (lazy people incapable of creating anything of value to anyone, who only live to exert control by dividing the existing pie) look at the world as it is today and say "this is enough - let's stop making anything new or nicer, and let's just divide up what we've got right now." Apply this to any good. Housing, healthcare, you name it. It's as good as it ever needs to be, so let's just divide up what there is so everybody gets a fair share.
It buggers the mind. Why would anybody invest in developing anything in a socialist kleptocracy?
It's (obviously and as you know) why socialistic societies are poorer than capitalistic ones.
The newer con is the socializing of profits without socializing risks, excepting the well-connected and other cronies. The latter get the government to socialize their risks by burdening the taxpayers.
Always, and everywhere, about OPM.
Without exception, the repellent sheep, me-bleat in the field
"This graze is not up to standard,give me more/better because:
-i deserve it (ewe and ram said so)
-My postmodern sheep sense tells me what is right (and what is BEST i deserve) for me
-You must acquiese to my reasonable demands (tantrum-based keening)
so is my fair, higher education approved, inquiry (read DEMAND)"
The rest of the herd tires, the resources dwindle, yet the 'me-bleaters' persist.
Ground grows barren, w/o a clue the bleaters rails on, point out how vindicated is their bleat, for reasons entirely unrelated to reality.
Someday soon, the bleaters, on trampled soil, will eye the 'others' to whom they bleat mercilessly,
blame the practical part of the herd, and give rumour of a diet change from grain to protein.
And yet, change, like the wolf-at-the-door (for mutton), waits;
it will not go well for the bleaters.