[Truth To Power]

letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.

Actually...no. Probably a compendium of ideas dictated (if that) to a white banker named Valentine.

Since you enjoy truth you will want to know that.

I will want to see some evidence for it, first. On form, you will not be providing any.

So you call your economic "system" ,..."Liberty, justice and truth".
I know I am not alone about now in rolling my eyes at such fatuous nonsense.

Maybe, but that's what it is.

Some people have called me a Georgist, but I differ with Henry George on some important points. Maybe the closest nomenclature would be a near-geolibertarian form of geoism, but neither of those is even in my dictionary. Geoists hold that all have equal rights to use what nature provided for all, and those who exclude others from it owe just compensation to the community of those thus excluded. Obviously, there is a lot more to "my" system than that, but that's the central point where I part ways with capitalism (I'm also against capitalist privileges like IP monopolies, private banks' debt money issuance, etc.). Basically, I think people should deal with each other by consent, not force, and this is best implemented through a "non-deprivation principle" in contrast to the ancaps' inaccurately labeled "non-aggression principle" (which actually sanctions initiation of aggression by landowners).

Problem is, I generally favor a larger government than the typical geolibertarian -- possibly even a larger government than is typical for modern industrialized countries -- because I don't think any land rent should be left on the table for private landholders to take, but also don't think any should be distributed to people in cash, in return for nothing. Most geolibertarians are also on board with patents or at least copyrights, but I'm opposed. Geoists have varying views of money: some are gold bugs, some are fine with the current debt money system, others, like me (and Henry George) are greenbackers: we favor fiat money issued and backed by government, with private banksters limited to providing services like financial intermediation.

The whole world ignorant and you holding the key to "the truth". Seen it before.

Yep. Every truth that has ever been discovered has been discovered by someone in that exact position -- and who wasn't afraid of the opposition and scorn of those who chose to remain ignorant.

A most uninteresting pathology.

That's pretty much what every opponent of liberty, justice and truth has said of those who champion liberty, justice and truth. OTOH...

"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi

[Nonsense]

People are not 'poor' by default, it's political ideology that is determining the course of many of our people's lives.

The most important factor is not No; 10 Downing St, but No:11.

Look at the 'tax gap', who should fill that 'gap' & how?

That gap is now approaching £80 BILLION p.a.

That could, at a stroke, be reduced by £34.8 BILLION p.a. by abolishing the Additional Pensions Contribution Relief, that only the rich & better - off benefit from by 'deferring' the tax liability at the nominal rate on their income.

I say that since the new Universal Credit has an income limit of £30K per household, that the principle must be extended into the TAX system, itself.
That is FAIR, otherwise, those not in 'need' would\do, actually get an annual 'discount' on their tax liabilities, thus making them escape their true liability for tax.

Again, when the deficit is the primary reason for imposing such limits on state help, that limit must apply across the whole of the state, not just on expenditure, but income(taxation).

One way to apply this would be to limit any tax reliefs\breaks or benefits to a household\individual income cap of £60K in households that work.
That would mean that ALL tax free pay, ALL benefits, reliefs\breaks would be stopped on incomes above £60K & that the National Insurance ceiling would disappear as well.
In return, only 2 levels of taxation should apply, a 'basic rate' & a 'premium rate' on incomes.

It is morally indefensible to create a 'middle-class' through the protection of their incomes at the expense of the 'poor', a class that government alone has created, with one exception, that of the working age feckless benefit claimant.

To which the following prescription must apply, no school-leaver, college or university leavers can be entitled to any state benefits, without first accruing five whole tax years of uninterrupted employment in full-time work.

It is not in the state's(taxpayers) interest to nurture an economic 'class' structure, for, if an underclass becomes a permanent feature of society, so too must the application of taxes to remedy that injustice.

It is the injustice of CAMERON\OSBORNE that they wanted made permanent & immutable as depicted in "ALL things bright & beautiful...".

NOT only do the CAMERON'S\OSBORNE's of this country desire such an economic underclass, so too does the Labour Party, a party that no longer has any reason to survive the treachery\betrayal visited on it's voting fodder, the 'working-class'.

I do not believe that Theresa MAY's appointment of Phillip HAMMOND as Chancellor will address these problems to create a fairer inclusive populace, his 'conservative' nature is against such change, as is Labour's, which remains to 'keep the poor, in their place' at the hand of those that feed them...OFF with their heads I say.

[Truth To Power]

Just noticed I neglected to answer this:

Do you think that the gift economy used by the indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest is an example of peoplebeing entitiled to do anything they want with property?

Yes, within socially established limits as already specified.

Also, why do you include personal property in private property?

Because it is the private property of individual persons. Why wouldn't it be included?

[Pants-of-dog]

So, you think that having to hold possessions in good condition in order to give them away later is the same as being allowed to do whatever you want with those possessions. That seems contradictory.

Personal property and private property are often considered two separate things by many economists, as they fulfill different roles in society.

[Truth To Power]

People are not 'poor' by default, it's political ideology that is determining the course of many of our people's lives.

Correct. There are three causes of poverty: fecklessness, misfortune, and privilege. By far the most important of these is privilege, which is created by law.

I say that since the new Universal Credit has an income limit of £30K per household, that the principle must be extended into the TAX system, itself.
That is FAIR, otherwise, those not in 'need' would\do, actually get an annual 'discount' on their tax liabilities, thus making them escape their true liability for tax.

"True" liability? What would make it their true liability for tax? Why should people be taxed at all on their wages -- the measure of what they contribute to the community -- but not on the value of their privileges, which measure what they will take from the community?
<snip irrelevant talk based on the false assumption that income tax is defensible>

It is morally indefensible to create a 'middle-class' through the protection of their incomes at the expense of the 'poor', a class that government alone has created, with one exception, that of the working age feckless benefit claimant.

They are not an exception. Privilege and its economic effects has so attenuated the incentive to work that it is in many cases quite rational not to.

It is not in the state's(taxpayers) interest to nurture an economic 'class' structure, for, if an underclass becomes a permanent feature of society, so too must the application of taxes to remedy that injustice.

Which is the whole point: working people are robbed of their liberty and enslaved for the unearned profit of the privileged; this robbery and enslavement leaves some in poverty, even destitution; for the health of the community, the destitute must be rescued from the effects of privilege; the rescue efforts are funded by further robbing working people through taxation of their wages and consumption; this tax burden forces even more into poverty and destitution; the tax burden on the remainder must then be piled even higher; etc. All for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites. And it goes on because the working people are not intelligent enough to understand how it is being done to them.

NOT only do the CAMERON'S\OSBORNE's of this country desire such an economic underclass, so too does the Labour Party, a party that no longer has any reason to survive the treachery\betrayal visited on it's voting fodder, the 'working-class'.

Labour's betrayal of working people dates to the moment they dropped land value taxation as the cornerstone of their fiscal policy.

I do not believe that Theresa MAY's appointment of Phillip HAMMOND as Chancellor will address these problems to create a fairer inclusive populace, his 'conservative' nature is against such change, as is Labour's, which remains to 'keep the poor, in their place' at the hand of those that feed them...OFF with their heads I say.

Labour will always betray working people as long as they reject the indisputable justice of land value taxation in favor of countervailing privilege.

So, you think that having to hold possessions in good condition in order to give them away later is the same as being allowed to do whatever you want with those possessions. That seems contradictory.

No, you are misinterpreting the custom. It was not a requirement to hold possessions in good condition. They could be used and consumed. Some were just not consumer goods but ritual goods which there was no real motive to consume. Different kind of property, different kind of possession and disposal.

Personal property and private property are often considered two separate things by many economists, as they fulfill different roles in society.

The former is just a subset of the latter. Similarly, "parents" fulfill a different role in society from "relatives."

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you are misinterpreting the custom. It was not a requirement to hold possessions in good condition. They could be used and consumed. Some were just not consumer goods but ritual goods which there was no real motive to consume. Different kind of property, different kind of possession and disposal.

Exactly, the very ideas of what property and possession were different, and cannot adequately be described by our culutrual defintion of ownership as "do whatever you want with it". This was necessitated in part by the different method of "disposal".

The former is just a subset of the latter. Similarly, "parents" fulfill a different role in society from "relatives."

That comparison is awful.

Now, I disagree that personal property is a subset of private property. This is because personal property is not there to fulfill any social role, while private property does.

[SolarCross]

Now, I disagree that personal property is a subset of private property. This is because personal property is not there to fulfill any social role, while private property does.

What are you jabbering about now?
Private property is property not owned by government by definition.

Personal property is property other than real estate, by definition. Though it is also commonly used with the meaning "property of a person". Either way personal property could certainly considered to be a subset of private property or even overlapping with private property 99% of the time.

What sort of things would be personal property whilst not also being private property?
What sort of things would be private property whilst not also being personal property?

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross,

This may clarify things:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona ... e_property

[SolarCross]

@SolarCross,

This may clarify things:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona ... e_property

Ah so Marxists don't use the terms correctly, gotcha.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you wish to say that Marxists use the terms differently than capitalists in order to clarify social relationships to property, then yes, they use the terms "improperly".

Please note that this assumes that the capitalists are using it properly, which I doubt.

A factory that one guy owns but hundreds work in creates different social roles for the people involved depending on their relationship to it. The pencil in my pocket does not. Now, tell me if I described the situation properly. If I did, then maybe the Marxists have some sense.

[SolarCross]

If you wish to say that Marxists use the terms differently than capitalists in order to clarify social relationships to property, then yes, they use the terms "improperly".

Please note that this assumes that the capitalists are using it properly, which I doubt.

A factory that one guy owns but hundreds work in creates different social roles for the people involved depending on their relationship to it. The pencil in my pocket does not. Now, tell me if I described the situation properly. If I did, then maybe the Marxists have some sense.

They use it incorrectly and differently from anyone else, and that certainly does not serve the cause of clarity, obviously.

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross,

Please explain how I am wrong in my statement about the factory and the pencil. Thank you.

[Electro Cat Attack]

So, you think that having to hold possessions in good condition in order to give them away later is the same as being allowed to do whatever you want with those possessions. That seems contradictory.

Personal property and private property are often considered two separate things by many economists, as they fulfill different roles in society.

Please provide evidence for this. Thank you.

[SolarCross]

Please explain how I am wrong in my statement about the factory and the pencil. Thank you.

First explain what you mean by "social role". I have to ask because as a marxoid you have changed the meanings of common terms to suit you ideological culty beliefs so it probably doesn't mean to you what it appears to mean to me. It seems to be a vacuous statement at face value.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please provide evidence for this. Thank you.

Please see my previous link to the wiki article. Thank you.

----------------

First explain what you mean by "social role". I have to ask because as a marxoid you have changed the meanings of common terms to suit you ideological culty beliefs so it probably doesn't mean to you what it appears to mean to me. It seems to be a vacuous statement at face value.

A social role is simply the part we play in society. So, in my factory example, the worker plays the social role of producing things of value for the owner to sell, while the owner plays the role of putting money in his pocket.

Now, you have accused me of all sorts of things, but you have not shown how I am wrong. From this, I can only conclude that you have no intelligent rebuttals to the differentitation between personal and private property.

[SolarCross]

A social role is simply the part we play in society. So, in my factory example, the worker plays the social role of producing things of value for the owner to sell, while the owner plays the role of putting money in his pocket.

Now, you have accused me of all sorts of things, but you have not shown how I am wrong. From this, I can only conclude that you have no intelligent rebuttals to the differentitation between personal and private property.

Is that a "social" role or just a role? Why use that word "social"? What is the word tricks with that? If I buy something from a shop, am I playing the role of a customer or am I playing the social role of a customer? If I get arrested by the police, am I playing the role of an arrested person or am I playing the social role of an arrested person? If I play poker with some mates, am I playing the role of a poker player or am I playing the social role of a poker player? If orate a poem on speaker's corner....

The difference between private and personal property I already explained. You are simply wrong. That might not be an "intelligent" rebuttal but then neither is patiently explaining to a simpleton that eating one's own poop is not healthy, "intelligent" or not I am correct and you are not.

[Pants-of-dog]

I used the word "social" because the role only makes sense in regards to the relationships between people in a society. I believe that is what "social" means.

So, since you have no intellgent rebuttal, I am going to continue to believe that different forms of property have different effects on society, and one of ese is the difference between personal property and private property.

[SolarCross]

I used the word "social" because the role only makes sense in regards to the relationships between people in a society. I believe that is what "social" means.

So, since you have no intellgent rebuttal, I am going to continue to believe that different forms of property have different effects on society, and one of ese is the difference between personal property and private property.

No it makes perfect sense just as a role. The worker has time and wants money. The employer has money and wants man-hours, so they trade for mutual benefit. That is I suppose a social arrangement in the loosest possible sense but then so is just about everything involving other people, ie: getting arrested, going to hospital, playing poker, going dancing, filing a tax return, flying economy or taking the bus.. The "social" is superfluous, I am thinking it must deliberate, but to what end?

Believe what you like, I shouldn't care about that anymore than I care what other kinds of kooky kulty fundies think: flat earthers, end timers, scientologists... If you use words incorrectly then you will get called on it though.

What difference does it make anyway? What do want shares in a company? Why not just save up some money and buy them? Or take out a pension plan? How is nagging random strangers on the internetz going to get you shares in a company?

[Pants-of-dog]

No it makes perfect sense just as a role. The worker has time and wants money. The employer has money and wants man-hours, so they trade for mutual benefit. That is I suppose a social arrangement in the loosest possible sense but then so is just about everything involving other people, ie: getting arrested, going to hospital, playing poker, going dancing, filing a tax return, flying economy or taking the bus.. The "social" is superfluous, I thinking it must deliberate, but to what end?

Exactly, "social" is defined as "things that necessarily require other people". Private property plays a social role. Personal property does not.

Believe what you like, I shouldn't care about that anymore than I care what other kinds of kooky kulty fundies think: flat earthers, end timers, scientologists... If you use words incorrectly then you will get called on it though.

Well, if you think I have said anything incorrect, please let me know.

What difference does it make anyway?

Property that plays a social role has a significant impact on our society. Personal property does not. If it helps to clarify the difference, personal property is a negative right, while private property is a positive right.

What do want shares in a company? Why not just save up some money and buy them? Or take out a pension plan? How is nagging random strangers on the internetz going to get you shares in a company?

Um....I don't know?

[SolarCross]

Exactly, "social" is defined as "things that necessarily require other people". Private property plays a social role. Personal property does not.

That makes no sense. If I have a cake, that is personal property? Then I give you a slice it becomes private property? I have a car that is personal property, until I take it to the garage for a service or give a hobo a lift, then it becomes private property?

If I have a fully automated factory, that is personal property?

Do you have any conception of what utter garbage you are spewing?