Closer Look at Socialism/Communism

[NotThatCreative]

Thinking about your statements, I realize that I cannot fully assimilate with [what appears to be] your assumption that power inevitably leads to oppression. Though oppression is certainly one possible outcome, it is by no means automatic. Having functioned as a “chief officer” for a [relatively small] multi-national corporation, I also realize how that role would be compromised if it were subject to the limitations that are incumbent to committee procedure. I think the essence of your general complaint might be more appropriately lodged against the strategic objectives of specific “sinister organizations” rather than the somewhat generic hierarchical model that bureaucracies are naturally prone to develop. It is reasonable to assume that your concern directly involves the concept of power – and in that regard it is probably necessary (or at least helpful) to determine what entity has the ability to initiate the action that drives any such effort. As a matter of practical consequence, that entity represents “the authority,” or “power,” in whatever system we may attempt to evaluate.

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "sinister organizations" so I can't quite respond to that. It's my observation that there are lots of companies that have been or currently are engaged in less-than-morally-upright practices. That applies to Chiquita and Coca-Cola's relations with paramilitaries in Colombia, McDonald's intentionally targeting kids with their advertisements, Citgo, the construction and river boat casino industries in Chicago and Illinois respectively, Nike, Wal-Mart, the virtual slave labor (indentured servitude at best) of American textiles in the Northern Marianna Islands, etcetera.

I don't think power necessarily leads to abuse and oppression. But I think it often does and must be watched constantly.

As I said, chief officers, president, vice presidents, etcetera should be kept. As the son of a company's vice president (albeit in a nonprofit Medicaid company) I have nothing against them. Many are simply trying to do their jobs as best they can. But their power over their workers is only as small as it is in this country because of efforts made by the economic left to ensure that workers have rights (like the right to unionize and the minimum wage). In other countries the situation is more grim.

As it stands right now the balance is fairly acceptable between productivity and freedom. Some changes like a moving from a minimum wage to a living wage would be helpful, but we're not doing that bad.

In all organizations, authority flows from the top down and responsibility flows from the bottom up. If an individual is assigned a specific authority (from above), then that individual is responsible for the actions he or she takes (from below) to exercise that authority in order to accomplish the outcome associated with the grant of authority. While it may sometimes seem that shareholders (as a group) lack the concentration of power that their vote instills in one or more individuals empowered to act on their behalf, it is nonetheless the shareholders that ultimately wield power in a corporation. Of course, many of the shareholders in a great number of companies are themselves corporations and there are a variety of complex subsidiary relationships that tend to muddle the nexus between ownership and control. Our never-ending penchant for complexity seems to foster an increasingly indiscernible comprehension of the source of power associated with the leadership in many large organizations.

The shareholders ultimately do have the power. But, keeping in mind the complexity of the system you've pointed out, my understanding is that most of the shares are owned by a select few at the top of the corporation in question. If this relationship were changed perhaps the workers would have a way (outside of strikes and the court system) to initiate change if it's really needed. It'd be hard to get that consensus, so I don't think it would lead to committee rule by the workers. I do however think that on important issues it can improve their situation without necessarily requiring they scrimp food for weeks.

I suspect that the issue of legitimacy is at the core of your dissatisfaction. You want “the people over whom said power is exercised” to have a greater voice. Can’t say as I disagree, but you have not yet convinced me that “the people” are oppressed. Maybe they have simply forsaken their responsibility.

I won't disagree that the people do frequently forsake their responsibility. But how much of that is because the forsakers in question don't think they have the power to change the situation? They look at the way things are and conclude they are doomed to gain nothing from attempts at change. In regard to our government the people have the power readily accessible to them, at little cost. Regarding private power, however, that isn't necessarily true. Strikes are a great tool, but they are hard on the workers striking. They need to put food on the table. The court system is likewise also nice, but it can only enforce existing laws which have to be passed through a government that takes in tons of money from the very people the workers are trying the regulate through the government. It's an incredibly uphill battle for them.

The legitimacy of a private corporation is there because people choose to work there. Or at least, that's what it looks like on paper. In reality, and especially in times of recession and depression, the existence of a "choice" is less obvious. With more laborers than jobs, a problem we're especially seeing right now, people are glad to simply have jobs. People are getting laid off by the thousands from corporations where the chief officers, president, and vice presidents are all getting bonuses worth tens of thousands of dollars, on top of their multi-hundred-thousand-dollar salaries. If they could somehow check that, jobs would be saved.

 

[CumAlong]

Wow, huge fucking thread...I didn't read everything, but fear not, there is no outlashing and rage. Socialism I won't try and pretend I know a whole lot about, but communism in my opinion, is essentially a picture perfect system...on paper. The problem is with human execution. The human element has proven far too caustic and adding it to the delicate balance causes dangerous results.

That being said, I am going to slowly back out of this topic and come back well rested to finish my reading.

 

[opinterph]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "sinister organizations"

I’m not sure either, but for our purposes it seems sufficient to recognize that they can be differentiated from the whole. For example, “sinister” might describe any firm that is engaged in a strategy that includes oppression of its workers or other affected populations. My basic premise being that bureaucracies are not inherently evil.

That proposition doesn’t prevent me from agreeing with the following:

[chief officers’] power over their workers is only as small as it is in this country because of efforts made by the economic left to ensure that workers have rights (like the right to unionize and the minimum wage).

The shareholders ultimately do have the power. But, keeping in mind the complexity of the system you've pointed out, my understanding is that most of the shares are owned by a select few at the top of the corporation in question. If this relationship were changed perhaps the workers would have a way (outside of strikes and the court system) to initiate change if it's really needed. It'd be hard to get that consensus, so I don't think it would lead to committee rule by the workers.

My statements about the inadequacy of committee rule were more specifically in relation to the role of a chief officer. Some decisions simply cannot wait. Other situations are so dynamic that a pause for peer consultation would render the resulting consensus moot. It’s hard enough for a board of directors to find consensus in determining parameters of a broad strategic outlook. In most situations, it is not feasible to keep the board apprised of changing events in the day-to-day operations. They periodically review and assess performance, but entrust (delegate) operational authority to the chief officers. Of course, the board’s authority arises directly from the shareholders.

Though I am continuing to argue a need for hierarchy and the associated pyramid of authority, I am also intimating that such a design does not preclude the rank-and-file workers from participating in setting policy or making decisions. I am a strong proponent of so-called, “employee empowerment” and think that employment should involve a shared responsibility between workers and managers. Note that wherever there is responsibility, there is also authority. Employment should foster an environment of mutual trust and respect and thereby enhance the quality of the worker’s life – at least the quality of his/her working life. There are numerous ways to empower employees, including allowing them to have an ownership stake in the company.

In order for employee ownership to be effective in boosting a company’s performance or survival, it must be combined with employee participation in the company’s management and decision-making at the job level. According to the National Center for Employee Ownership, 25% of private companies (stock is not publicly traded) with ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans) are majority-owned by employees with full voting rights. However, this represents only about 3,000 companies in the US. The median percentage ownership for ESOPs in private firms is about 30-40% and about 10-15% in public firms.

Does society have an obligation to provide such necessities as housing … food … and health care … to its citizens? You say you're a pragmatist, so I also wonder if you think our society in the here and now should or even can provide all this?

I think the world’s most technologically advanced and most productive democratic society should endeavor to take whatever steps it can to satisfy the basic needs of its citizenry. Our society seems quite content (resigned) to allow the top 1 percent to own more than a third of all the wealth. The top 20 percent own 85 percent of all the wealth.

We have a progressive tax against income, but for the most part, idle wealth can be hoarded without being taxed. I note that unequal distribution of wealth is often cited as a leading cause of the Great Depression. Wealth that is hoarded does not contribute to a productive economy. And a society that is unable or unwilling to create conditions that satisfy the basic necessities of its people becomes increasingly less productive and therefore less competitive, globally. But maybe that explains why 5 percent of the world’s population is responsible for about half of the total military expenditures of the world. After all, we must protect our way of life.

Consider that the combined wealth of the 400 richest Americans is enough to provide health care for all of the uninsured for the next 20 years. So yeah, I think society can provide such necessities. Perhaps a fatal flaw in the axiom, “to aggress against someone's property is to aggress against the individual” is its inherent assumption that the status quo is reasonably perfect. Folks who lack the basic necessities can’t expect those who are competent, educated, and worthy to pick up the slack. That would be unfair. [Link]

why not revolution?

A week ago today MSNBC’s program Hardball included a segment discussing the recent Arizona legislation to restrict what are called ethnic studies classes in the public school system there. During the discussion, Doug Nick from the Arizona Department of Education mentioned that one of the textbooks uses the term “pedagogy of oppression.” His objection to the teaching stemmed from the fact that the text caused students to realize that they were oppressed; when before taking the class they might not have felt that way. He regarded the resulting effect as “indoctrination.” Based on the overall discussion, I am quite certain the theory being challenged comes from a book titled, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” I am curious to know if you are familiar with the book or its author.

 

[Kulindahr]

In all organizations, authority flows from the top down and responsibility flows from the bottom up. If an individual is assigned a specific authority (from above), then that individual is responsible for the actions he or she takes (from below) to exercise that authority in order to accomplish the outcome associated with the grant of authority. While it may sometimes seem that shareholders (as a group) lack the concentration of power that their vote instills in one or more individuals empowered to act on their behalf, it is nonetheless the shareholders that ultimately wield power in a corporation. Of course, many of the shareholders in a great number of companies are themselves corporations and there are a variety of complex subsidiary relationships that tend to muddle the nexus between ownership and control. Our never-ending penchant for complexity seems to foster an increasingly indiscernible comprehension of the source of power associated with the leadership in many large organizations.

With the corporation example, authority flows from the shareholders. In government, authority flows from the citizens. So there are two organizations in which authority flows from the bottom up.

If you're going to say that the current system sans eminent domain and property tax would still deny the right to private property, then I think perhaps you also need to not say that Georgism provides a right to private property. Communal property perhaps, not private.

The current system screws up private property, because it bases it on taking by force. That's illegitimate.
Georgism gives a philosophical foundation to private property. That makes it legitimate.

Every title will still rest on that under Georgism. Or do you plan to hand the Native Americans and Australian aborigines their land back? I defer to my above comment regarding equality of opportunity.

The Native Americans have for the most part collected money for the land they held. The same thing should be done for all displaced people. Then they just get their dividends like everyone else. You can't go back and try to fix every mistake, but by switching to a rational system, you can fight future mistakes.

This leads me to practical considerations of Georgism. Who decides what land a person can put their house on? Is everyone allotted an equal portion of land? If so, how does it handle varying professions? If not, then who decides how much a dairy farmer vs a tobacco-grower vs a doctor's office receptionist gets? Let's say we live in a country where there isn't plentiful land. How do we allocate land to new generations? Do we just forcibly take it from current landowners (or is land-squatters a better term)? Or is the new generation just SOL?

I you want your house on a piece of land, you buy the title/lease. The system for who gets how much doesn't change. The only difference is that everyone with land pays their 'rent'/tax to a NfP entity which pays back the majority to the citizens as dividends.

 

[Kulindahr]

I suspect that the issue of legitimacy is at the core of your dissatisfaction. You want “the people over whom said power is exercised” to have a greater voice. Can’t say as I disagree, but you have not yet convinced me that “the people” are oppressed. Maybe they have simply forsaken their responsibility.

Around here, the only people I could find you who don't think the people are oppressed are either corrupt law enforcement or rich. Arbitrary arrest and manufacturing evidence are common enough the case for oppression is a slam dunk.

 

[opinterph]

In all organizations, authority flows from the top down and responsibility flows from the bottom up.

With the corporation example, authority flows from the shareholders. In government, authority flows from the citizens. So there are two organizations in which authority flows from the bottom up.

My statement is incorrect in absolute terms; however, your examples do not disprove it. Shareholders and voters (citizens) are the source of authority in their respective organizational structures and are therefore considered as the top of the pyramid.

 

[Kulindahr]

My statement is incorrect in absolute terms; however, your examples do not disprove it. Shareholders and voters (citizens) are the source of authority in their respective organizational structures and are therefore considered as the top of the pyramid.

Your examples, they were.

I guess it's all in how you arrange it -- voters are the top, the foundation, the center....

 

[NotThatCreative]

My basic premise being that bureaucracies are not inherently evil.

I can agree with that.

I am a strong proponent of so-called, “employee empowerment” and think that employment should involve a shared responsibility between workers and managers. Note that wherever there is responsibility, there is also authority. Employment should foster an environment of mutual trust and respect and thereby enhance the quality of the worker’s life – at least the quality of his/her working life. There are numerous ways to empower employees, including allowing them to have an ownership stake in the company.

What are some of the other ways you would advocate employee empowerment?

In order for employee ownership to be effective in boosting a company’s performance or survival, it must be combined with employee participation in the company’s management and decision-making at the job level. According to the National Center for Employee Ownership, 25% of private companies (stock is not publicly traded) with ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans) are majority-owned by employees with full voting rights. However, this represents only about 3,000 companies in the US. The median percentage ownership for ESOPs in private firms is about 30-40% and about 10-15% in public firms.

I am pleasantly surprised the numbers are even as high as they are. It's not enough, though. I would like to see, ideally, all companies big enough to set up ESOPs to be majority-owned by employees with full voting rights. I am encouraged by this study on their site. Do you know of any organization/site that's against ESOPs? Just so I can see what non-advocates have to say on the subject.

We have a progressive tax against income, but for the most part, idle wealth can be hoarded without being taxed. I note that unequal distribution of wealth is often cited as a leading cause of the Great Depression. Wealth that is hoarded does not contribute to a productive economy.

I'm not disagreeing with the notion there's idle wealth. But how much idle wealth is there really in this country? I wouldn't think it'd be all that much, but I may be wrong... What do you think can be done about the problem (however big a problem it may be) of idle wealth?

Our society seems quite content (resigned) to allow the top 1 percent to own more than a third of all the wealth. The top 20 percent own 85 percent of all the wealth.

Consider that the combined wealth of the 400 richest Americans is enough to provide health care for all of the uninsured for the next 20 years. So yeah, I think society can provide such necessities.

The current tax burden roughly reflects the wealth distribution. 25% of this country owns 87% of this country, 20% of this country pays for 80% of this country. The bottom 25% have no wealth, 47% paid no income tax this year. And 24% ended up with a net payment of nothing or a net gain after they got money back from the federal government even after taking payroll tax into account. The system is roughly where it should be with its progressivism, I'd say.

Yet we clearly don't have the money to provide the basic necessities of food, shelter, clothing to people. So in order to do so you'd have to drastically cut spending somewhere, or several somewheres (where?) and/or raise taxes on people (who?).

A week ago today MSNBC’s program Hardball included a segment discussing the recent Arizona legislation to restrict what are called ethnic studies classes in the public school system there. During the discussion, Doug Nick from the Arizona Department of Education mentioned that one of the textbooks uses the term “pedagogy of oppression.” His objection to the teaching stemmed from the fact that the text caused students to realize that they were oppressed; when before taking the class they might not have felt that way. He regarded the resulting effect as “indoctrination.” Based on the overall discussion, I am quite certain the theory being challenged comes from a book titled, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” I am curious to know if you are familiar with the book or its author.

I have not heard of either the author or the book. I haven't yet looked too deeply into it, but it seems intriguing enough. What do you think of it?

 

[NotThatCreative]

The current system screws up private property, because it bases it on taking by force. That's illegitimate.
Georgism gives a philosophical foundation to private property. That makes it legitimate.

I don't see how Georgism any more "legitimately" deals with the issue. Simply saying "everyone owns all the land" isn't enough, because it seems like the system you're advocating only differs from the current system in that the rent/tax you pay goes to a nonprofit entity instead of the government.

The Native Americans have for the most part collected money for the land they held. The same thing should be done for all displaced people. Then they just get their dividends like everyone else. You can't go back and try to fix every mistake, but by switching to a rational system, you can fight future mistakes.

I note that they got compensation for their land under the current system of private property, not Georgism. I don't understand how "switching" to Georgism will in any way help us avoid ethnic cleansing / stealing of other people's land in the future. I would think that rather the shifting moral zeitgeist has at least an equal chance of accomplishing that goal.

I you want your house on a piece of land, you buy the title/lease. The system for who gets how much doesn't change. The only difference is that everyone with land pays their 'rent'/tax to a NfP entity which pays back the majority to the citizens as dividends.

So essentially, the only difference is that the property tax changes to a land use tax and it's paid to a nonprofit entity instead of the government. Why can't we just change the property tax to a land use tax, pay it to the government, and not worry about whether we call it rent or tax? (language seems to be one of the three only differences between Georgism as you advocate it and the current system sans eminent domain)

I suppose to sum up the thrust of this post I should say I see four differences between the current system and Georgism as you propose it. One: land use tax instead of property tax. We can make that switch without an ideological/philosophical change. It would fit in just fine with the current philosophy/ideology of the country. Two: no eminent domain. Again, we can easily get rid of this with the current ideology/philosophy the country operates on. Three: payment to a nonprofit entity instead of the government. Seems pointless. Four: language ('rent' vs 'tax', etcetera). Also not enough of a basis for declaring a different philosophy/ideology.

Thus I'm kind of confused what you're even advocating. Why you need to even call it Georgism instead of just advocating the end of eminent domain (there are plenty of people in this country that do) and advocating a switch to a land use tax (there are plenty of economists who do).

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not disagreeing with the notion there's idle wealth. But how much idle wealth is there really in this country? I wouldn't think it'd be all that much, but I may be wrong... What do you think can be done about the problem (however big a problem it may be) of idle wealth?

A bequest cap would help: limit bequests to any single person or entity to a million times the minimum wage.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't see how Georgism any more "legitimately" deals with the issue. Simply saying "everyone owns all the land" isn't enough, because it seems like the system you're advocating only differs from the current system in that the rent/tax you pay goes to a nonprofit entity instead of the government.

Because it provides a rational foundation, instead of an ad hoc one. And as I've pointed out in other threads, it provides a rational foundation for anti-discrimination laws (Rand Paul is right about discrimination under our view of private property), environmental laws, national parks, and more.

I note that they got compensation for their land under the current system of private property, not Georgism. I don't understand how "switching" to Georgism will in any way help us avoid ethnic cleansing / stealing of other people's land in the future. I would think that rather the shifting moral zeitgeist has at least an equal chance of accomplishing that goal.

Since we're not using Georgism, how could they have been compensated that way? But under Georgism, eminent domain wouldn't even exist; the government would be no different than any other party interested in land.

So essentially, the only difference is that the property tax changes to a land use tax and it's paid to a nonprofit entity instead of the government. Why can't we just change the property tax to a land use tax, pay it to the government, and not worry about whether we call it rent or tax? (language seems to be one of the three only differences between Georgism as you advocate it and the current system sans eminent domain)

Because the money doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to the CitW (corporation of the whole). As with any corporation, the revenues would be paid out to the shareholders; every individual would get his quarterly check for one share of the income from land rent. Some might go to support nature preserves (or national parks) as being uses of the land in the best interest of everyone, a small portion might go to the government for the policing of land issues, but the great majority would go to the shareholders.

And note that these shares could not be bought or sold; the share lies in the person, and you can't buy or sell people.

Another difference is that the land rent wouldn't apply to improvements, as property tax does, so owners would not be penalized for, for (my favorite) example, paving their parking lots.

I suppose to sum up the thrust of this post I should say I see four differences between the current system and Georgism as you propose it. One: land use tax instead of property tax. We can make that switch without an ideological/philosophical change. It would fit in just fine with the current philosophy/ideology of the country. Two: no eminent domain. Again, we can easily get rid of this with the current ideology/philosophy the country operates on. Three: payment to a nonprofit entity instead of the government. Seems pointless. Four: language ('rent' vs 'tax', etcetera). Also not enough of a basis for declaring a different philosophy/ideology.

Thus I'm kind of confused what you're even advocating. Why you need to even call it Georgism instead of just advocating the end of eminent domain (there are plenty of people in this country that do) and advocating a switch to a land use tax (there are plenty of economists who do).

Call it CotW if you want. The change is that there would be a rational basis for private property, and that everyone would get dividends from that. It would give a rational basis for a lot of other things, too, the most noteworthy at the moment being that people could rationally tell Rand Paul that his desire to allow businesses to discriminate is immoral -- which is hard to do under the present concept of private property. It would give a foundation for laws against pollution and even endangering species. Instead of a slap-together heap of laws, we could integrate them into a rational system based on first principles.

And it isn't "land use tax instead of property tax", it's the elimination of both.

Getting rid of eminent domain is not possible under the current ideology/philosophy, which maintains the medieval concept of the entire kingdom belonging to the king; we've just substituted government for king.

Payment to the government means the money has vanished, which means you're not an owner, just a renter with no actual share in the property. Payment to the CotW would come back as dividends.

But the big difference is that it would put ownership on a rational basis. Having rational foundations is always a beneficial thing.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Because it provides a rational foundation, instead of an ad hoc one. And as I've pointed out in other threads, it provides a rational foundation for anti-discrimination laws (Rand Paul is right about discrimination under our view of private property), environmental laws, national parks, and more.

The "rational foundation" is simply elimination of the concept of private property, since you don't believe we have it right now. Beyond that, it's merely a change in language. It's not a "tax" it's a "rent", that sort of thing.

Since we're not using Georgism, how could they have been compensated that way? But under Georgism, eminent domain wouldn't even exist; the government would be no different than any other party interested in land.

They couldn't've. My point was that we don't need Georgism. The current system was able to right what it now acknowledges was a wrong.

Because the money doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to the CitW (corporation of the whole). As with any corporation, the revenues would be paid out to the shareholders; every individual would get his quarterly check for one share of the income from land rent. Some might go to support nature preserves (or national parks) as being uses of the land in the best interest of everyone, a small portion might go to the government for the policing of land issues, but the great majority would go to the shareholders.

And note that these shares could not be bought or sold; the share lies in the person, and you can't buy or sell people.

Another difference is that the land rent wouldn't apply to improvements, as property tax does, so owners would not be penalized for, for (my favorite) example, paving their parking lots.

What do you think the government does with the tax money it collects? Eats it? The government uses tax money to provide services to the general public, and actually send checks to some people too. Some of the money does go to preserving national parks, some does go toward policing of the land, some goes to actual policing, some goes to education, and the list goes on. How is this corporation of the whole so different from what we've got now?

Call it CotW if you want. The change is that there would be a rational basis for private property, and that everyone would get dividends from that. It would give a rational basis for a lot of other things, too, the most noteworthy at the moment being that people could rationally tell Rand Paul that his desire to allow businesses to discriminate is immoral -- which is hard to do under the present concept of private property. It would give a foundation for laws against pollution and even endangering species. Instead of a slap-together heap of laws, we could integrate them into a rational system based on first principles.

And it isn't "land use tax instead of property tax", it's the elimination of both.

Getting rid of eminent domain is not possible under the current ideology/philosophy, which maintains the medieval concept of the entire kingdom belonging to the king; we've just substituted government for king.

Payment to the government means the money has vanished, which means you're not an owner, just a renter with no actual share in the property. Payment to the CotW would come back as dividends.

But the big difference is that it would put ownership on a rational basis. Having rational foundations is always a beneficial thing.

The "rational basis" is the elimination of private property. Or rather, the recognized nonexistence of such, as you put it. I don't accept. Even if I did, the "rational basis" doesn't seem to change anything much, except language.

Payment to the government does not mean the money has vanished. You seem much smarter than to make such a ridiculous statement.

It's not elimination of both land use tax and property tax, it's simply renaming the land use tax land rent. Changing the name doesn't change the thing. What happens if you decide not to pay land rent? I'm guessing there's some penalty for that. As long as there is, it's a tax just as much as it's a rent.

Getting rid of eminent domain is of course able to happen under the current system. Most countries recognize the right to private property. The reason eminent domain is still around isn't because we believe it's all government property. That's also a ridiculous notion. Rather, it's a question of rights of the individual versus societal good. As an example, can you imagine the highway system constructed without eminent domain? There's a reason just compensation is required though. Because it's private property.

 

[Kulindahr]

The "rational foundation" is simply elimination of the concept of private property, since you don't believe we have it right now. Beyond that, it's merely a change in language. It's not a "tax" it's a "rent", that sort of thing.

You're not reading. The rational foundation is just that -- a rational foundation providing a basis for any concept of property at all. The current foundation is "I conquered it"; under that eminent domain, even for the purpose of enriching political contributors, is perfectly legitimate, and Rand Paul is right.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe we have private property right now, it has to do with a rational foundation for any concept of property at all. Any ad hoc system such as we currently depend on is illegitimate, because it doesn't consider reality, it just throws things together as they happen along.

They couldn't've. My point was that we don't need Georgism. The current system was able to right what it now acknowledges was a wrong.

Where did it right anything? The Supreme Court says the government can legitimately take property at less than its market value and award it to people who will use it to increase their wealth. That's why we need a rational foundation -- the current one allows courts to make irrational decisions ignoring people's rights, because the only principle underlying it all is "if you can take it, it's yours". Georgism wouldn't allow that at all, because government would be on an equal basis with the rest, no different than the mom&pop grocery they want to demolish so some multi-millionaires can put up a commercial center for their own profit.

What do you think the government does with the tax money it collects? Eats it? The government uses tax money to provide services to the general public, and actually send checks to some people too. Some of the money does go to preserving national parks, some does go toward policing of the land, some goes to actual policing, some goes to education, and the list goes on. How is this corporation of the whole so different from what we've got now?

And it's all done on an ad hoc basis. The only "system" consists of "what we feel like doing right now". There's no right to land, no rational basis for property. Georgism points out that there is a right to land, but that it belongs to everyone equally or no one at all; "might makes right" is neither a rational nor moral foundation, and that's what our current system rests on.

Nor does property tax result in any checks being sent to anyone, except perhaps corporations in the business of taking care of government facilities.

The "rational basis" is the elimination of private property. Or rather, the recognized nonexistence of such, as you put it. I don't accept. Even if I did, the "rational basis" doesn't seem to change anything much, except language.

No, the rational basis is just that: a rational basis, instead of relying on force as the justification for having property. It changes the entire system, putting it on a logical (and moral) basis.

Payment to the government does not mean the money has vanished. You seem much smarter than to make such a ridiculous statement.

Sure it does -- it's lifted out of people's pockets and goes where some small self-important group wants it to. Oh, it doesn't literally vanish, but there's no requirement for anything particular to be done with it, since the whole system is ad hoc.

It's not elimination of both land use tax and property tax, it's simply renaming the land use tax land rent. Changing the name doesn't change the thing. What happens if you decide not to pay land rent? I'm guessing there's some penalty for that. As long as there is, it's a tax just as much as it's a rent.

Changing the name changes everything: tax goes to those with guns, rent goes to the owners, and comes back as a dividend. The government becomes just one more owner, with no more say that any other. When it's a tax, you can be thrown off even if you pay your tax, if the government feels like it; if it's a rent, you can't be booted unless you don't pay it.

Getting rid of eminent domain is of course able to happen under the current system. Most countries recognize the right to private property. The reason eminent domain is still around isn't because we believe it's all government property. That's also a ridiculous notion. Rather, it's a question of rights of the individual versus societal good. As an example, can you imagine the highway system constructed without eminent domain? There's a reason just compensation is required though. Because it's private property.

"Able to happen" -- but not required. Again, it's ad hoc, what people feel like, what a court might be persuaded to do, what the folks with guns want you to do, with no rational basis.
Eminent domain is a flat declaration that it's government property: the only entity able to kick someone out on a whim, which is what eminent domain has become, is an owner.
If it were private property, the owner would be able to say "no". He'd be able to look at the shopping mall the current batch of politicians want to replace his neighborhood so political cronies can make a profit (oh -- and provide jobs, never mind that they're knocking down people's homes), and nix the idea. Instead, he has to take the pittance the politicians offer, like it or not -- because the politicians aren't even required to give the assessed value; "just compensation" is what they say it is.
People used to construct highways without eminent domain; people have still attempted to, only to be blocked by the government which likes its monopoly.

And the whole difference comes down to a simple question: on what basis can a person stand on a piece of land and say "This is mine"?
The current system has no rational answer, which is why the laws about it are a mess. The current system recognizes no right to land. Georgism has both..

 

[NotThatCreative]

I don't see how Georgism necessarily changes anything that can't be changed without it. We can abolish eminent domain and we can change to a land use tax. Your rational foundation isn't in any way necessary for either of those things to happen. The land use tax makes good logical sense, and abolishing eminent domain is perfectly consistent with our belief in private property. What do we need Georgism for?

Georgism relies on might makes right just as much as the current system sans eminent domain does. We have the land we have now because we conquered it/bought it/etc. The way in which we got the land doesn't change if you change the philosophy of the country. It'll still be ours because we won it.

Property tax adds to the governments' coffers. So it indirectly does result in people getting checks sent to them. And it directly results in services we desire. You seem to be arguing that we don't have a republic, that the people's will is not being exercised via elected officials. Only if that's true does the following mean anything.

Sure it does -- it's lifted out of people's pockets and goes where some small self-important group wants it to. Oh, it doesn't literally vanish, but there's no requirement for anything particular to be done with it, since the whole system is ad hoc.

The requirement for something particular to be done with it is accomplished through the ballot box. This isn't a dictatorship. Our officials are elected.

Much of your argument relies on the notion of eminent domain. Which isn't a necessary part of our system. If we were to get rid of it, your argument falls apart. Like this:

When it's a tax, you can be thrown off even if you pay your tax, if the government feels like it; if it's a rent, you can't be booted unless you don't pay it.

Without eminent domain, there is little difference in right to land between the current system and Georgism. The only difference is that the current system sans eminent domain would recognize the right to private property, the right to personal ownership of land, and Georgism does not. You seem to recognize the right to personal property, but what you're advocating does not recognize private property. As a firm believer in private property, I have a problem with that.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't see how Georgism necessarily changes anything that can't be changed without it. We can abolish eminent domain and we can change to a land use tax. Your rational foundation isn't in any way necessary for either of those things to happen. The land use tax makes good logical sense, and abolishing eminent domain is perfectly consistent with our belief in private property. What do we need Georgism for?

Georgism relies on might makes right just as much as the current system sans eminent domain does. We have the land we have now because we conquered it/bought it/etc. The way in which we got the land doesn't change if you change the philosophy of the country. It'll still be ours because we won it.

Property tax adds to the governments' coffers. So it indirectly does result in people getting checks sent to them. And it directly results in services we desire. You seem to be arguing that we don't have a republic, that the people's will is not being exercised via elected officials. Only if that's true does the following mean anything.



The requirement for something particular to be done with it is accomplished through the ballot box. This isn't a dictatorship. Our officials are elected.

Much of your argument relies on the notion of eminent domain. Which isn't a necessary part of our system. If we were to get rid of it, your argument falls apart. Like this:



Without eminent domain, there is little difference in right to land between the current system and Georgism. The only difference is that the current system sans eminent domain would recognize the right to private property, the right to personal ownership of land, and Georgism does not. You seem to recognize the right to personal property, but what you're advocating does not recognize private property. As a firm believer in private property, I have a problem with that.

I'll try again: Georgism provides a rational basis for land ownership. Our current system rests on invasion and murder. Georgism recognizes a universal right top land; our current system does not. Georgism benefits everyone from the use of land; our current system does not.

 

[NotThatCreative]

I'll try again: Georgism provides a rational basis for land ownership. Our current system rests on invasion and murder. Georgism recognizes a universal right top land; our current system does not. Georgism benefits everyone from the use of land; our current system does not.

And I'll repeat myself:

Georgism relies on might makes right just as much as the current system sans eminent domain does. We have the land we have now because we conquered it/bought it/etc. The way in which we got the land doesn't change if you change the philosophy of the country. It'll still be ours because we won it.

Without eminent domain, there is little difference in right to land between the current system and Georgism. The only difference is that the current system sans eminent domain would recognize the right to private property, the right to personal ownership of land, and Georgism does not. You seem to recognize the right to personal property, but what you're advocating does not recognize private property. As a firm believer in private property, I have a problem with that.

Claiming it's a rational basis doesn't make it so. We got the land we now have through war, genocide, and purchases. If we switch to Georgism then that'll still be how we acquired the land. Switching philosophies doesn't change historical facts. Without eminent domain, how would the current system be based on invasion and murder? I can't go kill you and get your property, private or personal. That would be illegal and I'd go to jail. The current system is not based on might makes right any more than Georgism is.

Thirty-second hypothetical: we switch to Georgism. But some people don't want to give up their land to the collective whole, even in name. What do you do with them? If they refuse to pay "rent" to the "CotW" but insist that they'd rather pay taxes to the government, do you force them off their land? Or do you let them be? Either way, how does it respect the right to property any more than the current system?

You also haven't explained how paying "rent" to a "CotW" that would then use that money for services and to distribute the money around is any different than paying land use tax to the government that then uses that money for services and redistribution of wealth.

 

[opinterph]

What are some of the other ways you would advocate employee empowerment?

… it seems intriguing enough. What do you think of it?

Adapted from: Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Chapter 2:

(a) the [STRIKE]teacher[/STRIKE] manager teaches and the [STRIKE]students[/STRIKE] employees are taught;

(b) the [STRIKE]teacher[/STRIKE] manager knows everything and the [STRIKE]students[/STRIKE] employees know nothing;

(c) the [STRIKE]teacher[/STRIKE] manager thinks and the [STRIKE]students[/STRIKE] employees are thought about;

(d) the [STRIKE]teacher[/STRIKE] manager talks and the [STRIKE]students[/STRIKE] employees listen — meekly;

(e) the [STRIKE]teacher[/STRIKE] manager disciplines and the [STRIKE]students[/STRIKE] employees are disciplined;

(f) the [STRIKE]teacher[/STRIKE] manager chooses and enforces his choice, and the [STRIKE]students[/STRIKE] employees comply;

(g) the [STRIKE]teacher[/STRIKE] manager acts and the [STRIKE]students[/STRIKE] employees have the illusion of acting through the action of the [STRIKE]teacher[/STRIKE] manager;

(h) the [STRIKE]teacher[/STRIKE] manager chooses the program content, and the [STRIKE]students[/STRIKE] employees (who were not consulted) adapt to it;

(i) the [STRIKE]teacher[/STRIKE] manager confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the [STRIKE]students[/STRIKE] employees;

(j) the [STRIKE]teacher[/STRIKE] manager is the Subject of the learning process, while the [STRIKE]pupils[/STRIKE] employees are mere objects.

 

[Kulindahr]

And I'll repeat myself:



Claiming it's a rational basis doesn't make it so. We got the land we now have through war, genocide, and purchases. If we switch to Georgism then that'll still be how we acquired the land. Switching philosophies doesn't change historical facts. Without eminent domain, how would the current system be based on invasion and murder? I can't go kill you and get your property, private or personal. That would be illegal and I'd go to jail. The current system is not based on might makes right any more than Georgism is.

Thirty-second hypothetical: we switch to Georgism. But some people don't want to give up their land to the collective whole, even in name. What do you do with them? If they refuse to pay "rent" to the "CotW" but insist that they'd rather pay taxes to the government, do you force them off their land? Or do you let them be? Either way, how does it respect the right to property any more than the current system?

You also haven't explained how paying "rent" to a "CotW" that would then use that money for services and to distribute the money around is any different than paying land use tax to the government that then uses that money for services and redistribution of wealth.

I call it a rational basis because that's what it is -- rational. It's not ad hoc, not based on patching things together because they feel right. It looks at the world and asks how, rationally, humans can lay claim to land, and gives an answer. That answer makes sense of all sorts of things.

For those who don't want to transition, let them stay in the old system until the land is sold. In the meantime, they don't get their dividend payments.

And I have explained the difference with rent, at length: rent turns into dividends, paid on an equal basis, the same to every person. There's no redistribution of wealth involved.

 

[MWalker]

if a good idea fails over and over and over in practice

it's a bad idea.

 

[saymyname]

Good lord, are you serious? Leninism was not a distortion of Marxism, it was another branch of it. The original concept was not destroyed, it was augmented.

And you honestly believe that the Soviet Union was an example of extreme capitalism??? Really?? Where are you getting this garbage?

See, I was/still am a Trotskyist sympathizer, and even I agree with you. But he wouldn't know the difference between Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism. Or what they have in common, seeing as his interpretation of communism consists of utopian fucking nonsense. It's an idea about PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION. Enough with your human nature la la love bullshit. It has nothing to do with that. It's about changing the material conditions of society. Go read!