You keep on trying to put me into little ideological boxes so you don’t have to engage with a new-to-you economic ideology.
And for the record, libertarians are dumb af and almost uniformly oppose the Georgist vision of land. And carbon taxes. And severance taxes. And unions. Andl YIMBYism. And IP reform. And so many other Georgist ideas that neoliberals and libertarians typically hate.
It’s especially funny because libertarian types love to call us land commies. Clearly we can’t be simultaneously libertarian and land commies…
I put you into a larger ideological box than the one you put yourself in. You complained that you weren’t a plant, you were a tree.
And yes I agree libertarians are dumb as fuck and I offer you the additional observation that there is no ‘true’ libertarian and they talk shit about each other all the time.
My source is a group of people I’ve already described as stupid
Very bold opinion on the categorization of an entire economic ideology for someone who, far as I can tell, literally never heard of it until today.
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but one of the most basic ways to categorize economic ideologies is based on who owns what factors of production, i.e., who owns land (including natural resources), labor, and capital.
Broadly speaking, communists believe in social ownership of all three, socialists in social ownership of land and capital, and capitalists in private ownership of all three. Within this framework, Georgism falls squarely on the belief that land should be socially owned (either directly by the government and leased out kinda like Singapore does or indirectly via “full” taxes on land, negative externalities, severance, etc.), while labor and capital ought to be privately owned. Thus, it is equally incorrect to describe Georgism as either socialism or capitalism, as it is simply neither.
Unlike libertarians, neoliberals, and capitals, Georgists view monopolies and private ownership of land as basically satan. That’s a pretty dang big difference.
How would you feel if I attempted to reduce down the wild complexity of leftist ideologies – everyone from syndicalists to market socialists to distributists to demsocs to Marxists – into “lmao a bunch of Pol Pot supporters”? Pretty silly and reductive, isn’t it?
Some Georgists don’t believe in ownership of labor because that inherently implies property rights in people. These Georgists recognize the same labor theory of property, which provides an ethical justification for common ownership of land and natural resources, also provides a critique of capitalist property relations and an argument for an inalienable right to workplace democracy.
See: https://www.ellerman.org/rethinking-common-vs-private-property/
Yeah. I know what a georgist is. It’s a libertarian who had his land taken by agribusiness.
I should have known what a sophomoric puke you were just by “Very bold” being your opening line.
Broadly speaking, communists believe in social ownership of all three, socialists in social ownership of land and capital, and capitalists in private ownership of all three.
Absolute mind palace nonsense. No relation to the outside world or its writings. And I’m losing it over “ownership of labor” being the difference between ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’
Complete clown shit.
How would you feel if I attempted to reduce down the wild complexity of leftist ideologies – everyone from syndicalists to market socialists to distributists to demsocs to Marxists – into “lmao a bunch of Pol Pot supporters”? Pretty silly and reductive, isn’t it?
It’s a libertarian who had his land taken by agribusiness.
Certainly one of the takes of all time.
fursona
I’m no furry, but this is honestly very rude and condescending towards people with that kink. Not sure why you thought that bigoted, conjured-from-thin-air jab was necessary. Maybe don’t be a bigot towards sexual minorities online?
You know those words in that order are talking about slavery right? The ownership of labor in private hands?
Just because you say it confidently doesn’t make it true. Read a little bit about the factors of production. Here, private ownership of labor means the value of your own labor is yours, rather than taxed away (such as via income taxes) or otherwise expropriated by the state.
And yes, of course I’m skipping over a lot of nuance in the difference between communism and socialism, but this is the highest level distinction. Much like there’s a heck of a lot different between humans and E. coli, but the highest level distinction is that one belongs to the domain bacteria and one belongs to the domain eukarya.
You said yourself you support private capital.
And I also said I support social ownership of land and natural resource, either directly with government leases or indirectly via taxes, which is very much not a capitalist/libertarian viewpoint by any stretch of the imagination. Very convenient of you to leave out that half, isn’t it?
And considering Georgism diverges from capitalism at the highest level of categorization, well, let’s just say your pet theory that “georgism = capitalism” falls rather flat. To continue the biological analogy, it’d be like if you said the domain archaea is actually just a subset of bacteria based solely on the fact that you had pre-decided that you think bacteria and eukarya are the only two domains of life. Or if you said all fungi were actually plantae because you pre-decided that you think plantae and animalia are the only two kingdoms of eukarya.
Private ownership of labor implies the ability to alienate and transfer it for present or future benefits. Such a procedure is not possible because labor is de facto non-transferable. People can have private ownership over the products of labor, but they cannot own their labor because labor is inalienably theirs
And yes, of course I’m skipping over a lot of nuance
You’re glossing over your ignorance by pretending there’s nuance you’re sparing me. Seen that trick plenty.
Your ideology is a stub on wikipedia. Calling it a fursona is hilarious. Especially when you’re completely ignorant of everything else besides what you self identify as.
Like you want to condescend to me while misusing the term ‘private property.’ It’s adorable.
And considering Georgism diverges from capitalism at the highest level of categorization
You allow for capital accumulation and private ownership of the means of production. You don’t diverge from capitalism at any point. You’re an ideological capitalist.
Learn what words mean. Until then it’s entirely appropriate to make fun of your politics as being a fursona. You took it on as a personality quirk and all of this discussion betrays the fact. You’re politically illiterate to the point that you choosing such a specific subset is a joke on itself.
You speak a lot about “means of production” for someone who has not once uttered a single word of concrete, tangible solutions in this entire thread. I’m out here posting sources, data, policies, and actual solutions that would measurably improve people’s lives, while you’re here larping online, doubling down on your bigotry against sexual minorities, and doing zero praxis.
You linked me to a stub of an article that exists on wikipedia for completion’s sake that describes the weird larping exercise that is your specific ideology fursona.
As far as you play acting with sources, data, blah blah, I apparently have to again remind you that the topic of this thread is the relationship between landlords and tenants, not your weird obsession with ocelots.
Lol what?
You keep on trying to put me into little ideological boxes so you don’t have to engage with a new-to-you economic ideology.
And for the record, libertarians are dumb af and almost uniformly oppose the Georgist vision of land. And carbon taxes. And severance taxes. And unions. Andl YIMBYism. And IP reform. And so many other Georgist ideas that neoliberals and libertarians typically hate.
It’s especially funny because libertarian types love to call us land commies. Clearly we can’t be simultaneously libertarian and land commies…
I put you into a larger ideological box than the one you put yourself in. You complained that you weren’t a plant, you were a tree.
And yes I agree libertarians are dumb as fuck and I offer you the additional observation that there is no ‘true’ libertarian and they talk shit about each other all the time.
lol
lmao
Very bold opinion on the categorization of an entire economic ideology for someone who, far as I can tell, literally never heard of it until today.
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but one of the most basic ways to categorize economic ideologies is based on who owns what factors of production, i.e., who owns land (including natural resources), labor, and capital.
Broadly speaking, communists believe in social ownership of all three, socialists in social ownership of land and capital, and capitalists in private ownership of all three. Within this framework, Georgism falls squarely on the belief that land should be socially owned (either directly by the government and leased out kinda like Singapore does or indirectly via “full” taxes on land, negative externalities, severance, etc.), while labor and capital ought to be privately owned. Thus, it is equally incorrect to describe Georgism as either socialism or capitalism, as it is simply neither.
Unlike libertarians, neoliberals, and capitals, Georgists view monopolies and private ownership of land as basically satan. That’s a pretty dang big difference.
How would you feel if I attempted to reduce down the wild complexity of leftist ideologies – everyone from syndicalists to market socialists to distributists to demsocs to Marxists – into “lmao a bunch of Pol Pot supporters”? Pretty silly and reductive, isn’t it?
Some Georgists don’t believe in ownership of labor because that inherently implies property rights in people. These Georgists recognize the same labor theory of property, which provides an ethical justification for common ownership of land and natural resources, also provides a critique of capitalist property relations and an argument for an inalienable right to workplace democracy.
See: https://www.ellerman.org/rethinking-common-vs-private-property/
Yeah. I know what a georgist is. It’s a libertarian who had his land taken by agribusiness.
I should have known what a sophomoric puke you were just by “Very bold” being your opening line.
Absolute mind palace nonsense. No relation to the outside world or its writings. And I’m losing it over “ownership of labor” being the difference between ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’
Complete clown shit.
I would feel the exact same way I feel now
Bemused contempt
Certainly one of the takes of all time.
I’m no furry, but this is honestly very rude and condescending towards people with that kink. Not sure why you thought that bigoted, conjured-from-thin-air jab was necessary. Maybe don’t be a bigot towards sexual minorities online?
Just because you say it confidently doesn’t make it true. Read a little bit about the factors of production. Here, private ownership of labor means the value of your own labor is yours, rather than taxed away (such as via income taxes) or otherwise expropriated by the state.
And yes, of course I’m skipping over a lot of nuance in the difference between communism and socialism, but this is the highest level distinction. Much like there’s a heck of a lot different between humans and E. coli, but the highest level distinction is that one belongs to the domain bacteria and one belongs to the domain eukarya.
And I also said I support social ownership of land and natural resource, either directly with government leases or indirectly via taxes, which is very much not a capitalist/libertarian viewpoint by any stretch of the imagination. Very convenient of you to leave out that half, isn’t it?
And considering Georgism diverges from capitalism at the highest level of categorization, well, let’s just say your pet theory that “georgism = capitalism” falls rather flat. To continue the biological analogy, it’d be like if you said the domain archaea is actually just a subset of bacteria based solely on the fact that you had pre-decided that you think bacteria and eukarya are the only two domains of life. Or if you said all fungi were actually plantae because you pre-decided that you think plantae and animalia are the only two kingdoms of eukarya.
Private ownership of labor implies the ability to alienate and transfer it for present or future benefits. Such a procedure is not possible because labor is de facto non-transferable. People can have private ownership over the products of labor, but they cannot own their labor because labor is inalienably theirs
You’re glossing over your ignorance by pretending there’s nuance you’re sparing me. Seen that trick plenty.
Your ideology is a stub on wikipedia. Calling it a fursona is hilarious. Especially when you’re completely ignorant of everything else besides what you self identify as.
Like you want to condescend to me while misusing the term ‘private property.’ It’s adorable.
You allow for capital accumulation and private ownership of the means of production. You don’t diverge from capitalism at any point. You’re an ideological capitalist.
Learn what words mean. Until then it’s entirely appropriate to make fun of your politics as being a fursona. You took it on as a personality quirk and all of this discussion betrays the fact. You’re politically illiterate to the point that you choosing such a specific subset is a joke on itself.
You speak a lot about “means of production” for someone who has not once uttered a single word of concrete, tangible solutions in this entire thread. I’m out here posting sources, data, policies, and actual solutions that would measurably improve people’s lives, while you’re here larping online, doubling down on your bigotry against sexual minorities, and doing zero praxis.
You linked me to a stub of an article that exists on wikipedia for completion’s sake that describes the weird larping exercise that is your specific ideology fursona.
As far as you play acting with sources, data, blah blah, I apparently have to again remind you that the topic of this thread is the relationship between landlords and tenants, not your weird obsession with ocelots.