chem1st Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 Ownership is evil. Should you pay tax on your underpants, or would you rather share pants with others in your commune? Underpants are very different to land. You can produce enough underpants for everyone in the world to have as many underpants as they want. You can't produce land, that is something that should belong to us all. If somebody wishes to have an unfair share of land, then they should pay a tax to compensate everyone, as everyone else loses out. Suppose somebody makes enough underpants so that everyone in the world can have underpants. Then he will become wealthy, with that wealth he could pay extra to have a larger share of land. If he wishes to keep that larger share, he must produce goods to gain wealth in order to pay the tax for having a larger share of the land. He would in effect be rewarded for his production, but punished for his excessive land use. As it stands a man may produce nothing, and remain very wealthy, through inheriting land which was stolen from the people. That is unfair and it has got to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 6, 2011 Author Share Posted October 6, 2011 http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/business/protest_march_to_call_at_city_1_3843244 Published on Thursday 6 October 2011 11:01 TRADE unionists and socialist campaigners recreating the Jarrow March of 75 years ago to protest about unemployment are passing through Sheffield on their route between the North East and London. The Youth Fight for Jobs march set off from Jarrow, South Tyneside, last Saturday and those involved include great grandchildren of original Jarrow marchers, unemployed young people, students and young trade unionists. They will pass through Sheffield city centre on Wednesday, October 12, where they will gather for a demonstration outside West Street Job Centre at 4pm. The marchers will then head further south, and are due to finish in London for a mass demonstration on November 5. The march is backed by major trade unions including the PCS union, whose general secretary, Mark Serwotka, said: “The young people recreating this march are sending a message that our communities must not be abandoned to pay for an economic crisis they did not cause.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Underpants are very different to land.. I disagree. It's possible to have dung in both but the former is usually an accident. You can produce enough underpants for everyone in the world to have as many underpants as they want. Unless that person is too poor to afford them because they're just a peasant farmer. I know many people out here, including my father in law, who farm small plots for a living but earn not a lot for their work. I know you're talking a load of the afore mentioned dung. If somebody wishes to have an unfair share of land, then they should pay a tax to compensate everyone, as everyone else loses out. . What if they're efficient farmers who produce a lot of food and compensate for the less efficient land users? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I disagree. It's possible to have dung in both but the former is usually an accident. I'm in error by omission. The dung in underwear could also be the result of fetish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 What if they're efficient farmers who produce a lot of food and compensate for the less efficient land users? People using the land to grow food would be using it efficiently. They wouldn't have to pay a land value tax, much like a person living in a modest dwelling. Somebody using it to build a mansion would. Somebody wanting to build a palace would have to pay even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 You realise that farming on a large scale is far more efficient than small scale use though right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 You realise that farming on a large scale is far more efficient than small scale use though right? In post #22 you ignored many of my points and went off track. You suggested I said people 'should be forced' to live on the common land (i.e. in effect become homeless - due to lack of common land), when I said they are 'will be forced' (due to a lack of any alternative - due to the monopoly on land). Share the land. Turn over farms to allotments. Allotments are more land productive than farmland. Farmland is labour efficient, but we have too much labour, so it makes sense to produce more food by providing allotments instead. You need to define how it is efficient... Is it labour efficient? - Yes Is it land efficient? - No What are the effects on wildlife? An allotment has a wide variety of plants and supports more wildlife - it also gives bees a varied pollen diet - and can help reverse colony collapse. What have we enough of? Labour What haven't we enough of? Land So why do we use use land in a labour effcient manner? When we could use labour more productively by using the surplus labour to improve the land efficiency of land... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 In post #22 you ignored many of my points and went off track. I don't believe I'm obliged to respond to everything you say, I get to pick and choose. You suggested I said people 'should be forced'You used the word force. to live on the common land (i.e. in effect become homeless - due to lack of common land), when I said they are 'will be forced' (due to a lack of any alternative - due to the monopoly on land). You need to define how it is efficient... Is it labour efficient? - Yes Is it land efficient? - No It's easy to define, it's a question of amount of produce compared to the amount of land used. What are the effects on wildlife? An allotment has a wide variety of plants and supports more wildlife - it also gives bees a varied pollen diet - and can help reverse colony collapse. I'm sure, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the efficient of use of land for the production of food. What have we enough of? Labour What haven't we enough of? Land So why do we use use land in a labour effcient manner? Because what we won't have enough of then is food. And what happens when we're all employed but starving because of the inefficient method of farming? When we could use labour more productively by using the surplus labour to improve the land efficiency of land... No we couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 8, 2011 Author Share Posted October 8, 2011 It's easy to define, it's a question of amount of produce compared to the amount of land used. Land efficiency... I'm sure, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the efficient of use of land for the production of food. Because what we won't have enough of then is food. Now your on about the amount of labour used to till the land. And what happens when we're all employed but starving because of the inefficient method of farming? No we couldn't. So what is it? Land efficient or Labour efficient? I've already said 'allotments are more land efficient than farms, farms are labour efficient'. No we couldn't. Of course we could use surplus labour to improve land efficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Still delighting in the mud though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.