On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:35:18 -0500, Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>> The important thing is to separate land and other geo resources from
>> improvements.
>>
>> Land isn't the product of human labor.
>>
>> Improvements are.
>
>Ah, a common Georgist mistake.
It's not a mistake, it's a fact, and you are just lying.
>Land, and all its economically significant
>resources, certainly are the products of human labor.
No, that is just self-evidently and indisputably a lie. The land and
resources were here long before any human. You know this. But you
have chosen to lie about it.
You are just another stupid, lying anti-geoist disinformation artist.
>What matters
>economically is not how a resource came into physical existence (whether it
>was fabricated by humans in factories or created *ex nihilo* by gods).
Yes, it is, because people produce products but not land.
Stupid, lying garbage.
>What matters is how it entered the economy.
You mean, through being either produced by labor or stolen by evil,
parasitic filth?
>*No natural products or materials
>are "resources" until they become available for use*.
Another stupid lie. When did the atmosphere or the Atlantic Ocean
"become available for use," hmmm?
The fact is, all natural resources have always been avaialble for use.
Stupid, lying garbage.
>Until then they are useless and economically invisible.
ROTFL!! That is the self-evidently cretinous claim that all land is
useless until someone uses it to make useful land.
>Resources enter the economy only after someone explores for and eventually
>discovers them (usually only after great effort and expense).
No, that is just another stupid lie on your part. Almost all natural
resources have "entered the economy" by sheer accident or simply by
first being used, and became private property only through being
appropriated by evil, thieving parasites who did nothing whatever to
explore for or discover them, and invested no effort or expense in
anything but rent seeking.
>At that point they become the property of the discover.
Oh, really? Did the first human to see the Atlantic Ocean become its
owner? Did the first across the Bering land bridge become the owner
of North America? First across the Isthmus of Panama, owner of South
America?
Give your head a shake, and tell us what flavor of jelly beans fall
out.
And just how does any discoverer extinguish everyone else's rights to
use what nature provided, hmmm? He hasn't produced anything. All he
has done is improve HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE. How would that give him a
right to deprive others of what they would otherwise have had?
I'm waiting.
>Prior to that time they were no
>one's property, and indeed not *property* at all.
They still aren't anyone's property, as there is no way to make them
into property without violating others' rights to use them.
>Georgists, like Marxists, rely on the "primordial common ownership" fallacy
Nope. That is just another lie. The only reliance is on a
self-evident and indisputable fact of objective reality: all would
otherwise have been at liberty to use what nature provided to all.
>--- the religious dogma that "God created the Earth and gave it to mankind
>in common."
Many geoists are atheists, lying garbage.
-- Roy L
