tadmjones

Not the OP as much as what 'preserving the natural environment' would mean . That usually implies the environment minus all activities of humankind, the 'pristine earth' notion.

'so?' like' hmm what to do what to do' It was a humorous (at least to me) aside. On a serious note , do you consider man or humankind as outside the scope of nature ?

And since biodiversity is prohuman life and happiness creating new species of plants and animals would increase human happiness, though it would work to unset the natural environment ... so?

But you would agree that objectively defining what constitutes pollutants and health hazards is the first step, yes?

Objectively define 'pollutants' as opposed to byproducts would be a good start. Objectiviely consider to what 'restrictions' refer. Compensation may not have to rely on force, I have a vague notion that certain industries need to have (for lack of a better term) 'industrial insurance' eg to obtain permits to generate nuclear power I believe a requirement already in place is that the builders and operators of those plants need to have adequate insurance to be able to pay for compensation if they cause an accident. Is this what you mean?

I have a hard time paying my real estate taxes 'out of the value of my priviate home', I end up using my income to pay the tax. Loving the Georgian solution.

What of individual C? C paid A rent (making C. through his stupidity and ignorance a slave ,to some extent, of A) based on B's improvements, the land value tax is for C's benefit, not the slave holders.

I have witnessed the depth and scope of your conviction, I doubt my assuring you of my understanding of the origin of rights(which I supplied earlier) would even put a dent in your conviction. One of the aspects of O'ism that makes it so attractive to me as a philosophic system is the heavy reliance on epistemology. I find stressing the importance of integration is key to understanding O'ism. Falling victim to the use of stolen concepts and floating abstraction can really derail one's thought, you know what I mean?

To be fair I would give the benefit of the doubt and assume the insidiuousness is unintentional and more a consequence of mistaken ideas. Mistaken on the premise of the rationalistic use of economic concepts of method by then going 'back' to moral/ethical base to assign a normative evaluation.

Jon Are you suggesting people are forced to pay rent?

I agree to pay rent to use an apartment or house, the money I agree to pay (which is the sum the landlord agrees to accept to allow me use of property, eg the market price of the rent). The agreement between myself and the landlord is an example of voluntary trade. How am I being deluded into thinking that the price I agreed to pay , is not in fact the price I agrred tp pay?

A vacant lot is an example of unimproved land. Build apartments on it and charge rent for use of the apartments. A portion of the rent collected(via trade) is unearned because the apartment sits on land that one time had no building on it, this is an example of the law of causality?

Your argument is based on the un-Ness of improvements, what are they what kind of entity is an unimprovement, or is it equivalent to unowned, which I belive would be begging the question.

How can you use the law of causality as an argument for the existence of a non thing? Whati s an unimprovement and how does one ,even immorally, attach a value to it and charge someone based on it?

The novel points to an actual "strike" , Judge Narragansett begins editing a copy of the Constitution. That scene always reminds me of Franklin's comment "A republic, if you can keep it" when asked what form of government came out of the convention in Philadelphia. The Atlases of colonial America created the first real world Gulch. I do not think the end of history is at hand. There is a rational foundation, it needs to be rediscovered and perhaps refined.

The Georgist argument , or the presentation of here in this thread, is an example of rationalism. Denying the morality of title or land ownership is based on the improper use of the terms of method in economics as a school of thought. Terms like 'rent, 'wage' and 'interest' are being used as if the are entities , and subsequently given properties, apart from the abstractions on which they are based. Apart from an entry on a ledger, how can rent received by divided into separate 'parts'? If I rent an apartment in my building and charge someone x amount and they pay me x amount , what are they paying me other than x amount?

Jon I suppose I could though they aren't really the same unshared, but I wil try and be less sophomoric in the future. What made Truman a monster ?

My intentional derisive and sarcastic comment in #33 , was directed at your conclusion that "Japan was nuked to scare the Russians".Was Truman a monster because of the US's aerial bombings of the enemy's cities or the use of nuclear weapons? or both?

Jon With reality being the final arbiter, you would agree then that your understanding and or knowledge of the Georgist position doesn't make it a good argument, it just means you think it is, yes?

Given only two operable devices, it would have been smarter to bomb London or Dublin. If the Russians saw we were willing and able to bomb our allies, that would really have put the fear of God in those atheist bastards. Besides Japan was about to surrender anyway, almost seems like a wasted effort at that point.

I said that voluntary trade is what brought the monetary gain.

I would say that people who place value on thinking rationally would be cognizant of any internal emotional response and apply the proper focus to analyzing any specific idea. Speaking in public could cause communication of their ideas to be tempered with apprehension of expected hostility from the audience, though I do not think this would have any bearing on their reasoning, if they valued rational thought above acceptance, and if they value acceptance of the audience above reason, who cares "what" they think?

What I meant was that land isn't literally capital, the capital is the ownership of the land. That one may trade and or leverage the legal distinction of holding title for monetary gain through voluntary association with others.

Jon You claim to understand O'ist epistemology, and yet insist on making a moral argument from the standpoint of economics, that to me suggests a lack of integration. You are correct 'land' isn't capital, the ownership of it is. "Makes you wanna build a ten percent down white picket fence house on this dirt"

"Lackie"? That seems like an odd spelling mistake for a Brit. Animal psychology notwithstanding, a man in isolation would need to consider how to obtain and keep values in order to survive. The point is that a man in isolation is a wholly separate context from individuals living in a presumably moral , division of labor society. Do you see that your argument about the morality of land ownership conflates the two ?