Very rich people call for higher taxes - on themselves

Original post by Underscore__

No, it's not about private ownership, hence why I compared the person to a government. If we rephrase your statement as:

There's a fourth group we can add: A far left government. The Government declares that they now have sole ownership of the forest, tells Peter and Paul that all the firewood they produce now belongs to him, then gives them a choice between handing over all the firewood they make in exchange for a small hourly wage, or leaving the forest and freezing to death.

It seems to fit much better with our Government character that it does into any model of capitalism.

It's missing the part where the government invests the proceeds back into society so that Peter and Paul won't be left destitute if they no longer wish to work in the forest :wink:

Reply 102

Original post by Captain Haddock

It's missing the part where the government invests the proceeds back into society so that Peter and Paul won't be left destitute if they no longer wish to work in the forest :wink:

Because that’s what all the self avowed socialist governments actually do...

Reply 103

Original post by Underscore__

Because that’s what all the self avowed socialist governments actually do...

I mean what you've really described is a nationalised forestry industry. Is that so bad? We have one, after all.

Reply 104

Original post by Captain Haddock

I mean what you've really described is a nationalised forestry industry. Is that so bad? We have one, after all.

The problem is more with the deceleration of sole ownership and taking the property of other people in a involuntary transaction

Reply 105

username1148663

Original post by Underscore__

The problem is more with the deceleration of sole ownership and taking the property of other people in a involuntary transaction

Actually it’s further than that because leftist argue that’s what has been done in the past...

Problem is it was done a couple of thousand years ago so it’s now irrelevant. Someone owns it and taking it is ridiculous, you want it you buy it.

That is the fundamental issue.

Reply 106

username4406682

19

Original post by Underscore__

Mark sounds like he has a lot more in common with a far left government than he does with any model of capitalism.

bUt tHaT wAsN't rEaL sOcIaLiSm!

Original post by Captain Haddock

Leftism is when natural resources are privatised and workers are paid a wage in exchange for their labour? Are you sure about that?

The point is - before Mark came along, nobody owned the forest.

Yes, the forest was held in common and so stealing it would be a violation of the NAP.

Reply 107

username4406682

19

Original post by Captain Haddock

It's missing the part where the democratic people's government invests the proceeds back into their Swiss bank accounts so that the Dear Leader won't be left not having to go on a holiday to the Caribbean :wink:

Fixed that for you.

Reply 108

Original post by LiberOfLondon

bUt tHaT wAsN't rEaL sOcIaLiSm!

Yes, the forest was held in common and so stealing it would be a violation of the NAP.

Original post by Underscore__

The problem is more with the deceleration of sole ownership and taking the property of other people in a involuntary transaction

Oh this is adorable, do you guys think private property came about through a process of mutual consent and asking nicely?

Reply 109

Original post by Captain Haddock

Oh this is adorable, do you guys think private property came about through a process of mutual consent and asking nicely?

No but as someone said the forceful taking of it was done a very long time ago by people who are now dead and don’t have any interest in the property. The people who own the land today are not responsible and as such have property rights

Reply 110

DSilva

12

Original post by Underscore__

Because that’s what all the self avowed socialist governments actually do...

Original post by Underscore__

The problem is more with the deceleration of sole ownership and taking the property of other people in a involuntary transaction

The flip side of that is why should a publicly owned resource, that we can all benefit from, be sold off to a business?

Reply 111

Original post by Underscore__

No but as someone said the forceful taking of it was done a very long time ago by people who are now dead and don’t have any interest in the property. The people who own the land today are not responsible and as such have property rights

I'd say it's still very relevent, given that about half the acreage of England is still owned by a tiny number of aristocrats who hold their lands as a direct result of their plunderous ancestors - a group that includes the 2nd richest man in the country and the richest under-30-year-old on the planet. There is simply no moral justification for this state of affairs.

Reply 112

imlikeahermit

14

Original post by DSilva

The flip side of that is why should a publicly owned resource, that we can all benefit from, be sold off to a business?

So that it can be more efficiently run. Public sector businesses are run like a never ending pot of money is at their disposal.

Reply 113

Fullofsurprises

OP

20

Original post by Captain Haddock

I'd say it's still very relevent, given that about half the acreage of England is still owned by a tiny number of aristocrats who hold their lands as a direct result of their plunderous ancestors - a group that includes the 2nd richest man in the country and the richest under-30-year-old on the planet. There is simply no moral justification for this state of affairs.

A lot of them still get huge handouts from the taxpayer on top of their vast land holdings. The Duchy of Cornwall for example is entirely tax free, which gives them an unfair advantage when they run their sales business. They have knocked out many organic rivals since they signed their cosy deal with Waitrose. Some of those rival products were better than Duchy, but they could not compete on price due to the tax advantage Prince Charles has.

Then there are the vast agricultural subsidies they receive and the payments for things like tree planting and wildlife protection given to the aristocratic estates, which they often obtain for doing little or nothing. There isn't an inspectorate checking to see if they comply with regulations.

Finally of course many of these estates are bound up in ancient tax free trusts for inheritance, guaranteed tax exempt by ancient laws passed in the 14th century and absurd things like that.

Reply 114

Original post by DSilva

The flip side of that is why should a publicly owned resource, that we can all benefit from, be sold off to a business?

If you’re not happy with it being sold off to a private enterprise then democratically elect a new government that won’t sell it

Reply 115

Original post by Captain Haddock

I'd say it's still very relevent, given that about half the acreage of England is still owned by a tiny number of aristocrats who hold their lands as a direct result of their plunderous ancestors - a group that includes the 2nd richest man in the country and the richest under-30-year-old on the planet. There is simply no moral justification for this state of affairs.

Source for that?

Reply 116

DSilva

12

Original post by Underscore__

If you’re not happy with it being sold off to a private enterprise then democratically elect a new government that won’t sell it

A rather flippant post. Was selling off the forests in any governing party's manifesto?

Once you sell things off they are often incredibly difficult and expensive to take back into public ownership, wrought with all sorts of legal difficulties in doing so.

It means the public loses a valuable commodity.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 117

DSilva

12

Original post by imlikeahermit

So that it can be more efficiently run. Public sector businesses are run like a never ending pot of money is at their disposal.

In what sense are our forests are really 'inefficiently run'?

Forests and public spaces shouldn't be run like a business.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 118

username4406682

19

Original post by Captain Haddock

Oh this is adorable, do you guys think private property came about through a process of mutual consent and asking nicely?

Are you talking about UK land ownership here?

The idea that the Normans stole the land from the people is cod history to say the least. Before the Norman Conquest the land was owned by Anglo-Saxon barons who, surprisingly enough, didn't get the land by asking the peasants nicely to give it up.

Reply 119