Below! -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D and N Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 11:53 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] Indian prejudice
How does the "Georgist economic philosophy regard: 1) a 'migratory' (non-stationary) or nomadic lifestyle? Would their utilization of the land base for their livelihood and survival constitute ownership? Or would they be regarded more as the 'animals of the land' and thereby only prove to be 'fair game'? H: Nomads are probably so because land is all taken up. They have nowhere to go. An important part of fully taxing land is that much land would be released by speculators who can't any longer hold land off the market. Haven't a clue what you mean by 'animals of the land' and 'fair game'. Is this some kind of left-wing ideology? 2) Is 'occupation of land' only considered viable if 'one sits on, builds on or fences off access to' said land? No. Very important to land use is security of tenure. I won't plant corn if anyone can drive their cars over it when they feel like it. My home will be of little use to me if anyone can come in play football in the living room. Security of tenure is vital in a free society. Harry On 11/26/2010 8:16 AM, Christoph Reuss wrote: > Harry wrote: >>>> Simply landless people trying to find free land to live on. >>> The land was already inhabited. That's why you forced the survivors into >>> reservations. >> Royalty gave Pennsylvania to Penn. Now it was occupied, others had to pay to >> settle. OK? > Now it was occupied? Above, you wrote "people trying to find FREE land". > > Anyway, it was already occupied BEFORE "Royalty gave Pennsylvania to Penn". > Don't you care what royalty did with those who occupied it before? > Considering what you as a Georgist wrote against privilege, it is surprising > that you defend royalty's crimes. > > >> Now it was occupied, others had to pay to settle. OK? > Paying for stolen property is fencing -- also a crime. > > >> Perhaps, rather like Penn, the Indians unfairly occupied too much land >> considering their numbers. > Oh, now I understand. If thieves enter a large home and kill the only > person who lived in it, then that makes the murder and theft of the home > okay. Because the person took up too much space. > > >> You should understand that no matter the apparent >> cause of war, it seems that all wars are fought ultimately over land. The >> North American conflicts were no different. > If there was sooo much "surplus" space, then why did you kill 98 million? > > >>> You took their best lands and paved over their cemeteries for supermarkets >>> and parking lots. >> I wasn't here in the 18th and 19th century. If I had been I would be sure to >> build lots of supermarkets and parking lots. > Yep, that's the problem. > > >> Why should millions of Indians pay with their life just because some Brits >> and Irish can't shake off their top Predators? >> >> Guess it was just the luck of the draw. Have the Swiss given back all the >> Nazi deposits to the Jews? > What does this have to do with my question? > > Your comparison is inappropriate because the Swiss didn't kill a single Jew > in the Holocaust -- on the contrary, we saved many more than America did > (on a per-capita basis), including our own, unlike most European countries. > > >>>> Things happened that were not pretty, but we can look back smugly from >>>> our comfortable armchairs and "tut-tut" with the clear perception of >>>> hindsight. >>> Would you say the same about the Holocaust? >>> The problem isn't armchairs but double standards. >> At the time many countries weren't eager to take in Jews. Now we "tut-tut" > No, you don't just "tut-tut", you ask $billions, until the end of time. > Why not the Indians too? > > >> Yet, the citizens of Dresden profited from the criminal behavior of >> the Nazis. > Dresden was full of refugees from the East who had already lost much more > than they had gained (if anything at all) from the Nazis' crimes. > > If profiteering from crimes justifies bombing, then you should carpet-bomb > America. Double standards again. > > Chris > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword > "igve". > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
