• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How is poverty best eliminated?

What of the following does the best for eliminating poverty in the world?


  • Total voters
    80
What a brilliant, well thought-out, and intelligent rebuttal.

:roll:
Of course it was, especially to the nonsense you were spewing.
 
Taking the mirror down will help.

How old are you?

Regardless of your absurd comments, the ideas are still absurd and will never be implemented because they are.

They have been implemented in several places, and with much success. Now, discuss rationally or stop quoting me.
 
Ownership doesn't presuppose your creation, it presupposes creation in general. You don't have to create everything you own for you to own it. It can be created by someone else and then traded or bought. That is the legitimate transfer of property. If I plant an apple tree, and then trade you some of my apples for your oranges, that is the legitimate transfer of property.

The same thing cannot be done with land. Land was always here and it is commonly owned by everyone. No one individual has a right to land just because they say they do.

I am not against the possession and homesteading of land, however it is important that we establish it is not a legitimate form of property.

If I put my labor towards growing the tree would you agree it is then my property? If you do, what makes land different? If I grow an orchard to make my living on and a house to live in who is to say that is not my property? Who is to say that the land it sits on is not property? Or will you say that I own the house and the orchard, but I do not own the land in which I labored towards to get the products in which you say I own?
 
If I put my labor towards growing the tree would you agree it is then my property? If you do, what makes land different? If I grow an orchard to make my living on and a house to live in who is to say that is not my property? Who is to say that the land it sits on is not property? Or will you say that I own the house and the orchard, but I do not own the land in which I labored towards to get the products in which you say I own?

If you improve/maintain land you would be homesteading it. An idea that I am not opposed to, as I've said several times.
 
So in other words, you do not support private property.

The whole line of reasoning makes no sense at all.

I believe in private property as long as that property is in the hands of the rightful owner. If you build a house, that is your property. No government should tax you for it. But if you exclusively hold a piece of land, which was not created by anyone but God/nature, then the value should be repaid to the community as restitution.
 
I agree with you that possession of land is not a legitimate form of property, however I do have a question about this "fee" you are referring to. Who is the "fee" paid to? Where does it go?

Ideally, the fee would be paid to the local community/government. Some believe it should be used for programs. Some believe it should be redistributed evenly to the citizens as a BIG. I think it should be a mix of both.
 
It's Georgism. It runs on the false belief that we all own the earth.

Do you believe you have a right to breathe the air around you? Do you believe you have a right to life?


Anyone with that belief can't be expected to establish the ownership of all the land of the earth to all the people of the planet. It's a false belief that has to run on the unproven assumption that because we are born we own something other than ourselves.

There is no point in self-ownership if we have no right to be on this planet.
 
Ideally, the fee would be paid to the local community/government. Some believe it should be used for programs. Some believe it should be redistributed evenly to the citizens as a BIG. I think it should be a mix of both.

Wouldn't that be assuming that government created the land? If you are paying a fee in return for the use of land, then doesn't that mean that the government owns the land? If so, how did the government come to "own" the land? Did they create it?
 
Getting a ****ing Job.



/thread
 
Is that not property taxes and the purchase of the property?

Property taxes tax not just land but the house and other improvements. Land value tax charges for the value of the land minus your improvements.


Are you a socialist?

Depends on the meaning of socialist. But if we are talking about the modern usage then I would say no. I believe in a decentralized government where the people have more influence on the policies that govern them.
 
If you improve/maintain land you would be homesteading it. An idea that I am not opposed to, as I've said several times.

Nope. Land has been homesteaded and possessed. It has never been owned. Ownership presupposes creation and the right to destroy. Land "ownership" entails neither.

I'm not sure I understand why land is an exception to the rule. If I can improve a product and own it then there is no reason to deny me land in which I improve. Why does my facilities not reward me ownership in both instances? I know you believe all land is owned by everyone, but you seem to be mixing up philosophies to come up with a middle ground that leaves land out of the equation for no explainable reason.
 
"Seldom used"??? You new here?
Pretty new to arguments here outside of global warming. That topic is chilled out right now so I am participating in others.
 
What a juvenile response.

It is a perfectly legitimate question in response to your silly responses.


Much success? iLOL
No they haven't.

When implemented even partially it has seen good results.

Alaska
Australia
South Africa
Delaware
California
etc.

Henry George's Remedy: Examples
Land value tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your notions of property is not rational.
So you have to post something rational to discuss to begin with.

"You keep what you create." How is that irrational?
 
It is a perfectly legitimate question in response to your silly responses.
It was your silly response which generated the exchange. You own it.

Frankly, I think you are just seeking attention.


When implemented even partially it has seen good results.

Alaska
Australia
South Africa
Delaware
California
etc.
:doh
Not even.


"You keep what you create." How is that irrational?
That is not about property. Which was the irrational belief being spoke to.
 
Do you believe you have a right to breathe the air around you? Do you believe you have a right to life?




There is no point in self-ownership if we have no right to be on this planet.

If everyone owns everything, no one owns anything. What is the point of me planting the trees for my orchard if someone can just come up behind me and rip them from the earth?
 
Wouldn't that be assuming that government created the land?

Legitimate question.

The government would have no right to tell the landholders how they to use the land, who they can sell it to, etc. Government only acts as referee on behalf of the community.

Land should not be considered the exclusive property of any entity, whether its government, corporations, or individuals. Land is a common right we all share and any exclusive access should be treated as a privilege.
 
Karl Marx is highly propagandized. I didn't agree with all of his ideas, but he laid out some very legitimate, intelligent arguments for a system he supposed would end or reduce poverty and human suffering. There were some good ideas, there were some bad ideas, but he is nowhere near the villain that the Right would like to make him out to be.



I'm aware of how America approaches "property", however I simply disagree with it. I don't think land can be legitimately owned in the sense that you can own an apple or a computer. I am not against possession or homesteading of land. People would still own houses, farm/maintain land, and enjoy a little piece of the world. However claiming that land is "property" has some very disastrous environmental and social consequences. It's important that we understand and recognize that the Earth is owned by everyone.

Marx intended marxist revolution to end poverty in the working class. How'd that work out?
 
The government would have no right to tell the landholders how they to use the land, who they can sell it to, etc. Government only acts as referee on behalf of the community.

I'm not sure that government can be considered a valid referee in this regard.

Land should not be considered the exclusive property of any entity, whether its government, corporations, or individuals. Land is a common right we all share and any exclusive access should be treated as a privilege.

We definitely agree on this.
 
I believe in private property as long as that property is in the hands of the rightful owner. If you build a house, that is your property. No government should tax you for it. But if you exclusively hold a piece of land, which was not created by anyone but God/nature, then the value should be repaid to the community as restitution.

So you selectively agree with private property rights. Anything else besides land that you dont think can be owned?
 
First world, far from it. Burdened with mountains of debt and high unemployment. They were using the Keynesian theory of borrow and spend for so many years and where it get them. A mountain of debt and 25% unemployment. And you stand by the Keynesian theory.



They have been trying to recover for years and went broke trying to do it. And you say the 25% of the people are getting aid and allowances are doing great, I call that living in poverty. You liberals want to eyewash everything and deny the facts. Socialism in Spain and in Greece is a picture perfect failure of Socialism. And you say pour more money on the problem and all will go away, problem is no one will give them any money. Does naive mean anything to you?



Now you want to compare Spain with the most impoverished countries such that are prevalent in Africa. I have been to many of them. That is not the point, the point is socialism such as in Greece and in Spain does no work. France is no better, they are all self destructing. Many of those countries in Africa had no economy to begin. Spain, Greece and France did and now because of their socialistic views they are self-destructing. And you use them as a model that the US should follow. I have said over and over, liberals never care about jobs, never have never will.

If you don't think that France and Spain are first-world nations, then you really have no clue what a first-world nation is. Tell me - how much time have you spent outside America's borders? Because the words and images you see on the screen are no substitute for actually being there, for finding out firsthand what life is really like in other nations.

YES, France and Spain are very much indeed first-world nations. Before the advent of the Euro, Greece was considered first-world by some (as you can see in the previous reference), not considered such by others. It was temporarily and has since slid back to "emerging" status. But given the fact that Greece has a significant problem with illegal immigrants from third-world nations, that by itself should tell you that whatever you may think in your cocoon over here in America, the people who are actually going there know it's a heck of a lot better than where they came from.

Oh, and as far as your "liberals never care about jobs", when you finally go overseas - or even just to Canada - make sure you tell all the liberals (for even the conservatives in those nations are usually quite liberal by current American standards) that they're all a bunch of lazy bums who "never care about jobs". Of course, this will require you saying this to just about everyone you meet....

But in any case, the vast majority of the world apparently disagrees with you as to what is and is not a first-world nation. But I'm sure you know better than everyone else.
 
:lamo

Moody's raised it from A1 to Aa3. Awesome. Oh, and every budget passed by the legislature is balanced, it's the law. What Brown and his progressive cronies who control the legislature didn't do again this year is pay back the billions they owe state funds they borrowed from in previous years.

If everything is so peachy, why did Brown call for more taxes when he rolled out his last budget?

The fact is, you really don't want to go down the California debate road GC, I am exceedingly well informed on the subject. It's just not worth my time to engage in such a pointless endeavor.

As to your socialist stuff regarding other countries. I don't care a bit. You've been posting that stuff for the longest time, and no matter what evidence is posted that takes the shine off, you throw it aside and start over again.

I'm glad you like all those socialist countries. I don't, and I'll fight people like you who want to bring it here until I'm dead. That's how it goes my friend.

Ah. So instead of answering the question I posed to you, you choose to ignore it altogether. Gee, wonder why? But don't feel bad - no other conservative has been able to explain it away, either. Just like you, they make an excuse for ignoring it, since the reality of which economies are doing best goes 180-degrees against the grain of conservative economic dogma.

And when it comes to California, if you'll recall, California was pretty much a red state between 1964 and 1992...and in I remember well when I was there for several years in the 1980's that California's economy was nothing to brag about. In other words, there's LOTS of blame to go around on red and blue sides...but no matter what you personally want to believe, California's economy is significantly better than what it was under Ahnold.
 
Back
Top Bottom