Hard Asset Alliance Invest In Gold

Wisconson – sign of more to come?

Login or register to post comments Last Post 54026 reads   312 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 291 through 300 (of 312 total)
  • Thu, Mar 31, 2011 - 12:08am

    #291

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 981

    count placeholder

    Flat Tax Race To The Bottom

 

Just a thought. Those who run corporations are always happy to advocate flat taxes for corporations. But do be careful, because it can a race to the bottom as neighboring states or countries vie with one another in a race to the bottom…

The tax burden continues then to be shifted increasingly to the middle class, as it pays more and receives less. Kinda like how in the U.S., most corporations pay very little in taxes already because they’ve got “regulatory capture”. Certainly far less than the 35% they complain about – typically from 10% to 0%.

Example Article:
The so-called “Baltic Tigers” – Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – that were praised by conservative economists for their institution of a flat tax a decade ago are now mired in so much debt that they have been forced to gut social programs and fire off a mass of civil service workers.” Sound familiar?
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/flat-tax-lose-lose-proposition

Poet

  • Thu, Mar 31, 2011 - 12:15am

    #292

    goes211

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 18 2008

    Posts: 287

    count placeholder

    Georgism

[quote=littleone]

I would like to clarify that land tax should be more properly termed: land rent.

This does not mean you cannot essentially own land/property …but a conscious moral attitude emerges that does see the need for land/ resources for all living humans globally…water, food, air, and a vibrant living ecosystem. The human need for resources is as absolute as the finite nature of global resources.  

Then we see that if we do have the right to own some of the earth’s finite resources we should pay into the community who doesn’t because everyone cannot have an equal share…AND do we really want to keep battling this out FOREVER. Does any individual have more rights to the source of life than any other? This is where the larger body idea is relevant. Also, the idea of land rent seems to eliminate the emergence of a creepy, all powerful, TOP(collective) system dictating human needs.

comments?

-littleone 

[/quote]

There are certainly things to like about Georgism.  There seems, at least to me, to be something fundamentally fair about taxing those that are taking the resources we all share on this planet, especially finite natural resources like oil, minerals, …. 

One thing that has always bothered me about pure libertarianism is the concept that everything is already owned by the time I got here.  It seems to me that any system that denies me the right to exist, because all land/water/air is owned by someone else is fundamentally flawed.  Also I question if property rights really exist for those that gained their property in unfair maners.  I am not talking about small-time owners of this and that, but oligarch’s that have gained massive wealth through unjust manipulation of the system.  When the systematic reset comes, there is no reason that these people’s wealth should remain with them.  I consider this distinct from those that created something and became massively wealthy.  I have no problem with wealth disparity as long as it was occured by actually adding value to society.

The problem I see with Georgism is who collects the taxes, sets their amounts, and decides where they are spent?  It seems like that would quickly be corrupted just like every other system.   Otherwise I find it an interesting idea, even if it is probably unrealistic/unworkable.

 

  • Thu, Mar 31, 2011 - 12:16am

    #293

    dshields

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 25 2009

    Posts: 385

    count placeholder

    the race to the bottom…

[quote=Poet]

 

Just a thought. Those who run corporations are always happy to advocate flat taxes for corporations. But do be careful, because it can a race to the bottom as neighboring states or countries vie with one another in a race to the bottom…

The tax burden continues then to be shifted increasingly to the middle class, as it pays more and receives less. Kinda like how in the U.S., most corporations pay very little in taxes already because they’ve got “regulatory capture”. Certainly far less than the 35% they complain about – typically from 10% to 0%.

Example Article:
The so-called “Baltic Tigers” – Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – that were praised by conservative economists for their institution of a flat tax a decade ago are now mired in so much debt that they have been forced to gut social programs and fire off a mass of civil service workers.” Sound familiar?
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/flat-tax-lose-lose-proposition

Poet

[/quote]

Completely agree.  The race to the bottom thing has already started.  I read a report just a couple of weeks ago that clearly described this.  The states around Illinois are all going to companies in Illinois and offering them sweat deals to relocate to their states since Illinois raised their state taxes.  The race to the bottom has begun.  The race to the bottom is part of the reduction in standard of living we are experiencing.  That will also continue.  Globalization has resulted in a tough deal for America.

 

  • Thu, Mar 31, 2011 - 12:19am

    #294

    darbikrash

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 297

    count placeholder

    Your asking some very good

 

[quote=littleone]

Then the corps would just “sell” the land to some post office box corporation in the Cayman Islands and “rent” it from themselves, then claim it as a business expense at tax time.

Useyerloaf, I don’t know the way around that…but maybe others who understand stealthy tax evasion could figure out if land rent could work or not(locally…global benefit for humanity). Keep in mind other taxes would be eliminated.

here is an excellent resource: Land Value Taxation: Rebuttals to Common Objections :

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160421.0 

and…

Rebuttal to Arguments Against Land Value Taxation

by Fred E. Foldvary, Senor Editor
The Progress Report
February 28, 2011

 

“Wisconsin Death Trip.” Mass Privatization as the “Final Stage” of Neoliberal Doctrine

by Prof Michael Hudson and Prof Jeffrey Sommers

Global Research March 12, 2011

But who is one to steal from? Most wealth in history has been acquired either by armed conquest of the land, or by political insider dealing, such as the great US railroad land giveaways of the mid 19th century. The great American fortunes have been founded by prying land, public enterprises and monopoly rights from the public domain, because that’s where the assets are to take. …

-littleone

 

[/quote]

Your asking some very good questions and unfortunately the answers are not so simple. But they should be. The issue of property rights, rent, land ownership et. al. go back centuries, and has been the source of much disagreement over a very long period of history.

Your quite right to challenge this. If you are so inclined, you may find it quit useful to have look at what some of history’s best thinkers have had to say about the subject, such a John Locke, David Hume, and more recently, David Harvey. Also, read the critiques of these works. I think you’ll find it a fascinating journey, and perhaps a little more than you bargained for.

Wiki

According to Adam Smith, the expectation of profit from “improving one’s stock of capital” rests on private property rights. It is an assumption central to capitalism that property rights encourage their holders to develop the property, generate wealth, and efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of markets. From this has evolved the modern conception of property as a right enforced by positive law, in the expectation that this will produce more wealth and better standards of living.

In his text The Common Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes describes property as having two fundamental aspects. The first is possession, which can be defined as control over a resource based on the practical inability of another to contradict the ends of the possessor. The second is title, which is the expectation that others will recognize rights to control resource, even when it is not in possession. He elaborates the differences between these two concepts, and proposes a history of how they came to be attached to persons, as opposed to families or entities such as the church.

Most thinkers from these traditions subscribe to the labor theory of property. They hold that you own your own life, and it follows that you must own the products of that life, and that those products can be traded in free exchange with others.

“Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself.” (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government)

“The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property.” (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government)

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (Frédéric Bastiat, The Law)

  • Socialism‘s fundamental principles are centered on a critique of this concept, stating, among other things, that the cost of defending property is higher than the returns from private property ownership, and that, even when property rights encourage their holders to develop their property or generate wealth, they do so only for their own benefit, which may not coincide with benefit to other people or to society at large.
  • Libertarian socialism generally accepts property rights, but with a short abandonment period. In other words, a person must make (more or less) continuous use of the item or else lose ownership rights. This is usually referred to as “possession property” or “usufruct“. Thus, in this usufruct system, absentee ownership is illegitimate and workers own the machines or other equipment that they work with.
  • Communism argues that only collective ownership of the means of production through a polity (though not necessarily a state) will assure the minimization of unequal or unjust outcomes and the maximization of benefits, and that therefore private ownership of capital should be abolished.

Both communism and some kinds of socialism have also upheld the notion that private ownership of capital is inherently illegitimate. This argument centers mainly on the idea that private ownership of capital always benefits one class over another, giving rise to domination through the use of this privately owned capital. Communists are not opposed to personal property that is “hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned” (Communist Manifesto) by members of the proletariat. Both socialism and communism are careful to make the distinction between private ownership of capital (land, factories, resources, etc…) and private property (homes, material objects, and so forth).

 

Thomas Hobbes (17th century)

The principal writings of Thomas Hobbes appeared between 1640 and 1651—during and immediately following the war between forces loyal to King Charles I and those loyal to Parliament. In his own words, Hobbes’ reflection began with the idea of “giving to every man his own,” a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such.

James Harrington (17th century)

A contemporary of Hobbes, James Harrington, reacted differently to the same tumult; he considered property natural but not inevitable. The author of ‘Oceana, he may have been the first political theorist to postulate that political power is a consequence, not the cause, of the distribution of property. He said that the worst possible situation is one in which the commoners have half a nation’s property, with crown and nobility holding the other half—a circumstance fraught with instability and violence. A much better situation (a stable republic) will exist once the commoners own most property, he suggested.

In later years, the ranks of Harrington’s admirers included American revolutionary and founder John Adams.

Robert Filmer (17th century)

Another member of the Hobbes/Harrington generation, Sir Robert Filmer, reached conclusions much like Hobbes’, but through Biblical exegesis. Filmer said that the institution of kingship is analogous to that of fatherhood, that subjects are but children, whether obedient or unruly, and that property rights are akin to the household goods that a father may dole out among his children—his to take back and dispose of according to his pleasure.

John Locke (17th century)

In the following generation, John Locke sought to answer Filmer, creating a rationale for a balanced constitution in which the monarch had a part to play, but not an overwhelming part. Since Filmer’s views essentially require that the Stuart family be uniquely descended from the patriarchs of the Bible, and since even in the late 17th century that was a difficult view to uphold, Locke attacked Filmer’s views in his First Treatise on Government, freeing him to set out his own views in the Second Treatise on Civil Government. Therein, Locke imagined a pre-social world, the unhappy residents of which create a social contract. They would, he allowed, create a monarchy, but its task would be to execute the will of an elected legislature.

“To this end” he wrote, meaning the end of their own long life and peace, “it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of nature.” Even when it keeps to proper legislative form, though, Locke held that there are limits to what a government established by such a contract might rightly do.

“It cannot be supposed that [the hypothetical contractors] they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate’s hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases…”

Note that both “persons and estates” are to be protected from the arbitrary power of any magistrate, inclusive of the “power and will of a legislator.” In Lockean terms, depredations against an estate are just as plausible a justification for resistance and revolution as are those against persons. In neither case are subjects required to allow themselves to become prey.

To explain the ownership of property Locke advanced a labor theory of property.

William Blackstone (18th century)

In the 1760s, William Blackstone sought to codify the English common law. In his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England he wrote that “every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether produced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly is a degree of tyranny.”

How should such tyranny be prevented or resisted? Through property rights, Blackstone thought, which is why he emphasized that indemnification must be awarded a non-consenting owner whose property is taken by eminent domain, and that a property owner is protected against physical invasion of his property by the laws of trespass and nuisance. Indeed, he wrote that a landowner is free to kill any stranger on his property between dusk and dawn, even an agent of the King, since it isn’t reasonable to expect him to recognize the King’s agents in the dark.[citation needed]

David Hume (18th century)

In contrast to the figures discussed in this section thus far, David Hume lived a relatively quiet life that had settled down to a relatively stable social and political structure. He lived the life of a solitary writer until 1763 when, at 52 years of age, he went off to Paris to work at the British embassy.

In contrast, one might think, to his outrage-generating works on religion and his skeptical views in epistemology, Hume’s views on law and property were quite conservative.

He did not believe in hypothetical contracts, or in the love of mankind in general, and sought to ground politics upon actual human beings as one knows them. “In general,” he wrote, “it may be affirmed that there is no such passion in human mind, as the love of mankind, merely as such, independent of personal qualities, or services, or of relation to ourselves.” Existing customs should not lightly be disregarded, because they have come to be what they are as a result of human nature. With this endorsement of custom comes an endorsement of existing governments, because he conceived of the two as complementary: “A regard for liberty, though a laudable passion, ought commonly to be subordinate to a reverence for established government.”

These views led to a view on property rights that might today be described as legal positivism. There are property rights because of and to the extent that the existing law, supported by social customs, secure them.[11] He offered some practical home-spun advice on the general subject, though, as when he referred to avarice as “the spur of industry,” and expressed concern about excessive levels of taxation, which “destroy industry, by engendering despair.”

Critique and response

“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is, in reality, instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have property against those who have none at all.”

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776 [12]

By the mid 19th century, the industrial revolution had transformed England and had begun in France. The established conception of what constitutes property expanded beyond land to encompass scarce goods in general. In France, the revolution of the 1790s had led to large-scale confiscation of land formerly owned by church and king. The restoration of the monarchy led to claims by those dispossessed to have their former lands returned. Furthermore, the labor theory of value popularized by classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo were utilized by a new ideology called socialism to critique the relations of property to other economic issues, such as profit, rent, interest, and wage-labor. Thus, property was no longer an esoteric philosophical question, but a political issue of substantial concern.

Charles Comte – legitimate origin of property

Charles Comte, in Traité de la propriété (1834), attempted to justify the legitimacy of private property in response to the Bourbon Restoration. According to David Hart, Comte had three main points: “firstly, that interference by the state over the centuries in property ownership has had dire consequences for justice as well as for economic productivity; secondly, that property is legitimate when it emerges in such a way as not to harm anyone; and thirdly, that historically some, but by no means all, property which has evolved has done so legitimately, with the implication that the present distribution of property is a complex mixture of legitimately and illegitimately held titles.” (The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer

Comte, as Proudhon later did, rejected Roman legal tradition with its toleration of slavery. He posited a communal “national” property consisting of non-scarce goods, such as land in ancient hunter-gatherer societies. Since agriculture was so much more efficient than hunting and gathering, private property appropriated by someone for farming left remaining hunter-gatherers with more land per person, and hence did not harm them. Thus this type of land appropriation did not violate the Lockean proviso – there was “still enough, and as good left.” Comte’s analysis would be used by later theorists in response to the socialist critique on property.

Pierre Proudhon – property is theft

Main articles: What is Property? and Property is theft!

In his 1849 treatise What is Property?, Pierre Proudhon answers with “Property is theft!” In natural resources, he sees two types of property, de jure property (legal title) and de facto property (physical possession), and argues that the former is illegitimate. Proudhon’s conclusion is that “property, to be just and possible, must necessarily have equality for its condition.”

His analysis of the product of labor upon natural resources as property (usufruct) is more nuanced. He asserts that land itself cannot be property, yet it should be held by individual possessors as stewards of mankind with the product of labor being the property of the producer. Proudhon reasoned that any wealth gained without labor was stolen from those who labored to create that wealth. Even a voluntary contract to surrender the product of labor to an employer was theft, according to Proudhon, since the controller of natural resources had no moral right to charge others for the use of that which he did not labor to create and therefore did not own.

Proudhon’s theory of property greatly influenced the budding socialist movement, inspiring anarchist theorists such as Mikhail Bakunin who modified Proudhon’s ideas, as well as antagonizing theorists like Karl Marx.

Frédéric Bastiat – property is value

Frédéric Bastiat‘s main treatise on property can be found in chapter 8 of his book Economic Harmonies (1850).[13] In a radical departure from traditional property theory, he defines property not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with respect to an object. Thus, saying one owns a glass of water is merely verbal shorthand for I may justly gift or trade this water to another person. In essence, what one owns is not the object but the value of the object. By “value,” Bastiat apparently means market value; he emphasizes that this is quite different from utility. “In our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services.”

Strongly disputing Proudhon’s equality-based argument, Bastiat theorizes that, as a result of technological progress and the division of labor, the stock of communal wealth increases over time; that the hours of work an unskilled laborer expends to buy e.g. 100 liters of wheat decreases over time, thus amounting to “gratis” satisfaction. Thus, private property continually destroys itself, becoming transformed into communal wealth. The increasing proportion of communal wealth to private property results in a tendency toward equality of mankind. “Since the human race started from the point of greatest poverty, that is, from the point where there were the most obstacles to be overcome, it is clear that all that has been gained from one era to the next has been due to the spirit of property.”

This transformation of private property into the communal domain, Bastiat points out, does not imply that private property will ever totally disappear. This is because man, as he progresses, continually invents new and more sophisticated needs and desires.

Contemporary views

Among contemporary political thinkers who believe that natural persons enjoy rights to own property and to enter into contracts, there are two views about John Locke. On the one hand there are ardent Locke admirers, such as W.H. Hutt (1956), who praised Locke for laying down the “quintessence of individualism.” On the other hand, there are those such as Richard Pipes who think that Locke’s arguments are weak, and that undue reliance thereon has weakened the cause of individualism in recent times. Pipes has written that Locke’s work “marked a regression because it rested on the concept of Natural Law” rather than upon Harrington’s sociological framework.

Hernando de Soto has argued that an important characteristic of capitalist market economy is the functioning state protection of property rights in a formal property system where ownership and transactions are clearly recorded. These property rights and the whole formal system of property make possible:

  • Greater independence for individuals from local community arrangements to protect their assets;
  • Clear, provable, and protectable ownership;
  • The standardization and integration of property rules and property information in the country as a whole;
  • Increased trust arising from a greater certainty of punishment for cheating in economic transactions;
  • More formal and complex written statements of ownership that permit the easier assumption of shared risk and ownership in companies, and insurance against risk;
  • Greater availability of loans for new projects, since more things could be used as collateral for the loans;
  • Easier access to and more reliable information regarding such things as credit history and the worth of assets;
  • Increased fungibility, standardization and transferability of statements documenting the ownership of property, which paves the way for structures such as national markets for companies and the easy transportation of property through complex networks of individuals and other entities;
  • Greater protection of biodiversity due to minimizing of shifting agriculture practices.

All of the above enhance economic growth.

  • Thu, Mar 31, 2011 - 12:24am

    #295

    dshields

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 25 2009

    Posts: 385

    count placeholder

    America

  • Socialism‘s fundamental principles are centered on a critique of this concept, stating, among other things, that the cost of defending property is higher than the returns from private property ownership, and that, even when property rights encourage their holders to develop their property or generate wealth, they do so only for their own benefit, which may not coincide with benefit to other people or to society at large.
  • Libertarian socialism generally accepts property rights, but with a short abandonment period. In other words, a person must make (more or less) continuous use of the item or else lose ownership rights. This is usually referred to as “possession property” or “usufruct“. Thus, in this usufruct system, absentee ownership is illegitimate and workers own the machines or other equipment that they work with.
  • Communism argues that only collective ownership of the means of production through a polity (though not necessarily a state) will assure the minimization of unequal or unjust outcomes and the maximization of benefits, and that therefore private ownership of capital should be abolished.

Both communism and some kinds of socialism have also upheld the notion that private ownership of capital is inherently illegitimate. This argument centers mainly on the idea that private ownership of capital always benefits one class over another, giving rise to domination through the use of this privately owned capital. Communists are not opposed to personal property that is “hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned” (Communist Manifesto) by members of the proletariat. Both socialism and communism are careful to make the distinction between private ownership of capital (land, factories, resources, etc…) and private property (homes, material objects, and so forth).

*******************************************************************************************

America was founded on equal opportunity, not equal outcome.  It is enshrined in the constitution and bill of rights.  It is one of, if not the most important, reason(s) America has been able to generate the civil society and wealth it has created.  If we stray from equal opportunity and move to equal outcome we will fail.  There is so much to say about this one subject.  It is the root of the rot from within that we are dealing with these days with the class of dependency.

 

  • Thu, Mar 31, 2011 - 01:01am

    #296
    plato1965

    plato1965

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 18 2009

    Posts: 86

    count placeholder

    The limitations of liberty…

There are certainly things to like about Georgism.  There seems, at least to me, to be something fundamentally fair about taxing those that are taking the resources we all share on this planet, especially finite natural resources like oil, minerals, ….

 I agree.. libertarianism doesn’t cope well with 1) Land ownership, 2) Pollution… the “tragedy of the commons” problem.

 If we look at the nuclear power issue, using it inevitably endangers (if only psychologically..), your neighbours even across borders… you get the benefit, they get the harm… 

 Does everyone on the planet get a veto ? Everyone within 50km ? I can’t see any principled solution…

 There’s something missing.. an ethical basis for conduct which inevitably affects others.

 Similarly for GM crops (dispersal, resistance), and patents.. if I happen to get there first, do I really have a moral right to control an idea, even when independently rediscovered later ?

 

  • Thu, Mar 31, 2011 - 02:21am

    #297

    darbikrash

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 297

    count placeholder

    Choose wisely

[quote=dshields]

America was founded on equal opportunity, not equal outcome.  It is enshrined in the constitution and bill of rights.  It is one of, if not the most important, reason(s) America has been able to generate the civil society and wealth it has created.  If we stray from equal opportunity and move to equal outcome we will fail.  There is so much to say about this one subject.  It is the root of the rot from within that we are dealing with these days with the class of dependency.

[/quote]

The subject of property rights is indeed a large subject, and digs deep into many areas of the political economy. The references are well rounded, and not biased to any particular agenda. I merely suggest that each read and draw their own conclusions as to what property rights means to them, and then to our society. Not sure there is a right or wrong answer.

At some point if one is intellectually honest, we have to overlay all this fine thinking with what we see today in our economy. Which is failure.

Is it a failure because of the actions of a class of dependency? Or is it failure because of actions from a class of accumulation and greed? It is for each person to decide.

Choose wisely.

  • Thu, Mar 31, 2011 - 12:53pm

    #298

    Wendy S. Delmater

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 13 2009

    Posts: 1433

    count placeholder

    as if the choice matters

 

Is it a failure because of the actions of a class of dependency? Or is it failure because of actions from a class of accumulation and greed? It is for each person to decide.

or is it failure because of Peak Oil and the end of growth? Globalization will cause developed nations to lower their standard of living, as surely as dye permeates water via osmosis, but so will being saddled with a fiat currency in the midst of a severe credit contraction cased by the end of cheap energy.

Your choice is a false dichotomy, looking toward the past. What frightens me is the possibility of a global tyrant rising from the ashes of the Crash. If big Government of any stripe will be holding a whip, expect things to get rocky.

 

  • Thu, Mar 31, 2011 - 02:50pm

    #299

    darbikrash

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 297

    count placeholder

    dichotomy

[quote=safewrite]

or is it failure because of Peak Oil and the end of growth? Globalization will cause developed nations to lower their standard of living, as surely as dye permeates water via osmosis, but so will being saddled with a fiat currency in the midst of a severe credit contraction cased by the end of cheap energy.

Your choice is a false dichotomy, looking toward the past. What frightens me is the possibility of a global tyrant rising from the ashes of the Crash. If big Government of any stripe will be holding a whip, expect things to get rocky.

[/quote]

In the context of dshields post(s) it does matter. In the context of rebuilding from a failure and repeating the same mistakes, with or without oil- it does matter. In the context of allocating resources in a diminished resource environment -it does matter.

It is yours that is the false dichotomy. If you believe removing debt based fiat currency and switching to renewable energy means its back to business as usual, you may want to consider a growth imperative that comes not from money, but from other causality. What might that be?

  • Thu, Mar 31, 2011 - 03:32pm

    #300

    littleone

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 24 2009

    Posts: 88

    count placeholder

    Goes,You make a good point

Goes,

You make a good point about who already owns most of the land. In fact, I recall listening to an interview with Jamie Foxx, right after his huge success from his starring role in the movie RAY, where Foxx said he asked Oprah for some advice on what to do with his money. Jaime Foxx said Oprah told him, there is only so much ocean front property. It is sad that very large properties can be bought up just to sit on for wealth protection and creation. Putting a limit on land purchases maybe? Land values would need to be estimated or calculated. I am partly fascinated with this because if values were assessed locally or globally we might see the reality of the equation.

Also would there be a penalty for pollution or harm? Derrick Jensen talks about cell phone towers harming birds. We need birds for birdsongs and they fertilize the soil for us. Humans are also sensitive to magnetic and electical fields…many people who work on a computer all day get migraine headaches and carpal tunnel. A person’s brain can be altered with light patterns, etc…

The health of the land is the health of the people. Now…if that is true, how would TIME, or MONEY, or TECH factor in?

I keep coming back to this as something that needs deeper reflection because the current money/tech/oil monolpoly and the coming money/tech/water monolopoly both rely on the unseen/plausibly deniable effects of humans unnaturally becoming a battery link for total forced/perpetual consumption. Yes, humans are natural predators, but there is a natural balance that occurs between predator and prey when relationships with nature and each other are honored.

As far as who is in control…well I struggle with that question…I do think with all individuals there are levels of morality that come with maturity and experiential knowledge…I also think the My Precious/Darth Vadar move is possible at anytime. So far, I like Russell Means talk on Matriarchy…Male and Female Elders are the think tank for the clan but no decisions are made unless they are unanimous. I do not think adults remain healthy under heavy coercion.

Darbikrash,
Thank you for taking the time post all that info. Very helpful to grasp the scope of this issue.
Viewing 10 posts - 291 through 300 (of 312 total)

Login or Register to post comments