Harry replied to Ray: > I am certainly trying to teach, as best I can, about the philosophy of Henry > George. Is there something wrong with that?
You still didn't explain the internal contradiction between your statements (A) monopolies should not be privatized (B) real estate is a monopoly (on that place) i.e. (A^B) real estate should not be privatized and your tenet that land ownership should be private. > People oppress other people as the white settlers oppressed the Indians -- > and as the Indians apparently oppressed those who were there before them. Who was there before them? > The greatest destruction of species is carried out by Nature herself. But not at this speed. > We are part of the environment. Whatever we do is part of environmental > change. We cannot "destroy the balance of environments". Yes we can, and much faster than the environment can recover. > Your point about cultures is peculiar. If these cultures were destroyed, how > do you know they possessed " unbelievable advances in systems thought"? Perhaps by looking at what they left behind? Even today in Europe, nutrition would hardly be imaginable without potatoes, corn, tomatoes, beans, etc. How can you eat that and insult them as expendable and insignificant? > Adam Smith suggested that if we all do what is best for us, then it will be > good for the community. Do you know how the 33 miners in Chile survived? Not by each one eating as much as he liked, but by equally sharing the few cans of fish and milk. > As for laissez-faire and laissez-passer (let do and > let pass), these are simply descriptions of liberty. No, descriptions of "dog eat dog". > They sound pretty good to any individual. Not the sensible ones. > If you want to be told what to do -- usually by an > omnipotent State -- then they are not so attractive. The problem isn't the state but who is in charge. Predators mess up everything, whether it's a state or just a gang of village thugs. Or private ownership... > You of course enjoy the state because it taxes people (forces people) to > contribute to the arts -- a coercion of which you approve. As far as I'm concerned, public funding for what passes for "arts" today should be abolished. > Henry George suggested that that no-one has more right to natural resources > than another. But private land ownership (and inheritance) IS more right to natural resources. > That if someone wanted a more than equal right he should > compensate the rest of us. Rent is not enough to compensate for the much higher value of the land. > In the case of the oceans, the problem is that we > have not established ownership. If the UN or some other international body > were to establish ownership, then it could arrange for sensible economic use > of our oceans and restore them to viability. Applying a system of commons (allocating pieces to lease, instead of ownership) would achieve that goal without the backdraws of ownership. > So you are wrong on most counts, but you make your points delightfully. I prefer the other way around. Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
