[SpecialOlympian]

I'm just drunk and I don't care what I said but challenge me and I'll own all of you.

My dick is out, suck it or fight it.

[SpecialOlympian]

"is there any reason to own bonds ever for any reason?"

"Shut the fuck up, computer, I'm doing finacne shit here.

'Christ whenever the computer starts getting sentient it gets bitchy."

[Hakeer]

No they won't. Cost basis is reset upon death.

And you will not reach the majesty of being worth $13 million dollars on your death. Your estate will not be subject to the estate tax. You will never have that much money. You may be angry about it, but from an estate planning perspective you're quite fortunate!

You do not even understand the gift code and how it reduces your estate tax exclusion. Which is literally my job to know. You speak before a god who understands the tax code more than you could ever know, and your first desire is to insult me. You should be paying me to speak with me.

If I were bored enough, I could give you free tax planning advice. I could give you advice on how to plan the estate you plan to leave in death. Instead, you choose to wallow in your own filth. "Look at me! I only buy stocks!"

Idiot. Fool. Doesn't even know how much their children will be dancing because you're dead, and all the stocks you left them are stepped up in cost basis. Your children will sell your stocks and reinvest for their own purposes with minimal tax consequences.

My wife won’t let us gift more than a small amount at Christmas. Don’t want to “spoil” the kid. LOL.

But I do have a good estate plan with our trust. We have 3 accounts at M-L and the only one that goes to our son when one of us dies will always have the max exclusion for our state. Otherwise, he has to pay 10% estate tax on everything over that amount. As you know, the estate tax laws differ by state.

[Truth To Power]

So I need to change the question. California instituted fishing license in 1907 to raise funds for the state. Plenty of salmon in the river. If you were there, do you have “liberty right” to fish without a license?

Certainly, as that is what I would have if others (the government) did not deprive me of it.

If you pitch your damn tent 10 feet in front of my home, you sure as hell ARE depriving me and everyone else the opportunity to use that land,

It's true that you can't stand on the same ground I am standing on, and in that sense I am depriving you of it. But that is not a deprivation, because there is plenty of other ground just as good that you can stand on. In the case of pitching a tent, I am occupying a little more ground, and if enough people pitch tents, there may be a scarcity of space in the most desirable locations. In that case, a fair and consensual allocation system would require those who want to exclude others from the desirable locations to make just compensation to the community of those thus deprived of their rights to liberty.

But in any case, you are not using that piece of ground, and I am not depriving you of anything you would otherwise have just because you don't want me there. Moreover, I am at least using the land. Greedy, evil, dog-in-the-manger landowners want to be legally entitled to deprive me of it without making just compensation for what they are taking from me, and without even using it themselves!

and there will be a fight whether we are monkeys, prehistoric humans, or UK citizens.

GARBAGE. Prehistoric humans were quite capable of respecting each other's rights to use what nature provided for all. The data on modern hunter-gatherers are quite clear: while they recognize a small zone around a fellow community member's dwelling as being reserved for their use (in case their hut needs repairs, or whatever), when they have exercised their own liberty right to build a dwelling where they want, they don't presume to object to someone else exercising their equal liberty right to build a dwelling nearby.

You claim you have a “liberty right” to that land.

Only to use it. Not to own it or exclude others from it without making just compensation for what I am taking from them.

That's the difference between me using the land and you owning it: I am prepared to make just compensation to the community for excluding everyone else from it; you demand to be legally entitled to steal it from everyone else without making just compensation for what you are taking from them, like any greedy, evil thief.

I claim it as my territory if I am a monkey or Clallam Indian,

No, that's just more garbage from you. Like people, monkeys are social animals, and do not naturally claim individual territories, like our hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding ancestors, including the Clallam -- at least before they learned legalized stealing via landowning from greedy, evil whites. The territory is the troupe's or community's, not an individual's private property.

or my property in 190 countries on planet Earth today.

<sigh> Yes, well, a few hundred years ago, you could have made the same "argument" to justify chattel slavery.

Why can't you ever remember that any "argument" that would justify chattel slavery is already known in advance to be fallacious, disingenuous and evil, with no further argumentation needed?

We can’t both use that land at the same time.

You don't even want to use it! You just want to be legally entitled to extort money from me for your permission to use it. On what grounds can you then object to being characterized as a greedy, evil parasite?

You want your damn tent there, and we (monkey, Clallam chief, or me today) want NOTHING there.

Your wants are not rights. If you want to abrogate my rights, make just compensation for what you are taking from me.

You have your justification for depriving us what we want,

But not what you would otherwise have. The land is not something that would otherwise be in any individual's possession. It had to be appropriated by force.

and we have our justification for depriving you of what you want.

The liberty I would otherwise have.

See the difference?

Funny how you missed that little detail.

[Hakeer]

My wife won’t let us gift more than a small amount at Christmas. Don’t want to “spoil” the kid. LOL.

But I do have a good estate plan with our trust. We have 3 accounts at M-L and the only one that goes to our son when one of us dies will always have the max exclusion for our state. Otherwise, he has to pay 10% estate tax on everything over that amount. As you know, the estate tax laws differ by state.

But I am sure I don't know much about estate planning.

[Hakeer]

Certainly, as that is what I would have if others (the government) did not deprive me of it.

It's true that you can't stand on the same ground I am standing on, and in that sense I am depriving you of it. But that is not a deprivation, because there is plenty of other ground just as good that you can stand on. In the case of pitching a tent, I am occupying a little more ground, and if enough people pitch tents, there may be a scarcity of space in the most desirable locations. In that case, a fair and consensual allocation system would require those who want to exclude others from the desirable locations to make just compensation to the community of those thus deprived of their rights to liberty.

But in any case, you are not using that piece of ground, and I am not depriving you of anything you would otherwise have just because you don't want me there. Moreover, I am at least using the land. Greedy, evil, dog-in-the-manger landowners want to be legally entitled to deprive me of it without making just compensation for what they are taking from me, and without even using it themselves!

GARBAGE. Prehistoric humans were quite capable of respecting each other's rights to use what nature provided for all. The data on modern hunter-gatherers are quite clear: while they recognize a small zone around a fellow community member's dwelling as being reserved for their use (in case their hut needs repairs, or whatever), when they have exercised their own liberty right to build a dwelling where they want, they don't presume to object to someone else exercising their equal liberty right to build a dwelling nearby.

Only to use it. Not to own it or exclude others from it without making just compensation for what I am taking from them.

That's the difference between me using the land and you owning it: I am prepared to make just compensation to the community for excluding everyone else from it; you demand to be legally entitled to steal it from everyone else without making just compensation for what you are taking from them, like any greedy, evil thief.

No, that's just more garbage from you. Like people, monkeys are social animals, and do not naturally claim individual territories, like our hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding ancestors, including the Clallam -- at least before they learned legalized stealing via landowning from greedy, evil whites. The territory is the troupe's or community's, not an individual's private property.

<sigh> Yes, well, a few hundred years ago, you could have made the same "argument" to justify chattel slavery.

Why can't you ever remember that any "argument" that would justify chattel slavery is already known in advance to be fallacious, disingenuous and evil, with no further argumentation needed?

You don't even want to use it! You just want to be legally entitled to extort money from me for your permission to use it. On what grounds can you then object to being characterized as a greedy, evil parasite?

Your wants are not rights. If you want to abrogate my rights, make just compensation for what you are taking from me.

But not what you would otherwise have. The land is not something that would otherwise be in any individual's possession. It had to be appropriated by force.

The liberty I would otherwise have.

See the difference?

Funny how you missed that little detail.

What “liberty right” boils down to is you can pitch your tent anywhere on my 20 acres unless I am literally standing with my feet on that dirt or I have my house or driveway there. I have a lot of beautiful tall Western red cedar trees on my property. I place high value on this natural environment. They are very valuable if I just wanted to cut them for $$$. Regarding your “compensation” to the community I pay for my land in addition to $10,000+ annual property tax, our county also places high value on “green spaces” and offers me a break on my property taxes if I agree to conserve the land. I haven’t applied for it, because I don’t need the money.

[Truth To Power]

What “liberty right” boils down to is you can pitch your tent anywhere on my 20 acres unless I am literally standing with my feet on that dirt or I have my house or driveway there.

Which is what I would be able to do if you had never existed, and to do which you are therefore depriving me of my liberty. Right.

I have a lot of beautiful tall Western red cedar trees on my property. I place high value on this natural environment. They are very valuable if I just wanted to cut them for $$$.

Lots of people like trees. But if we can't cut any trees because somebody likes them where they are, we can't get the wood we need to make stuff like houses. Again, your wants do not take priority over other people's rights.

Regarding your “compensation” to the community I pay for my land in addition to $10,000+ annual property tax, our county also places high value on “green spaces” and offers me a break on my property taxes if I agree to conserve the land. I haven’t applied for it, because I don’t need the money.

The unimproved value of the land is the market's estimate of how much more you will be legally entitled to take from the community by owning the land than whatever taxes you will pay on it.

[Hakeer]

Which is what I would be able to do if you had never existed, and to do which you are therefore depriving me of my liberty. Right.

Lots of people like trees. But if we can't cut any trees because somebody likes them where they are, we can't get the wood we need to make stuff like houses. Again, your wants do not take priority over other people's rights.

The unimproved value of the land is the market's estimate of how much more you will be legally entitled to take from the community by owning the land than whatever taxes you will pay on it.

If I didn’t own the land, it would not just be sitting there for you to pitch your tent. That is part of your weird “liberty rights” fantasy. These is not prehistoric times. It was owned by a timber company, and somebody else before them all the way back to the Clallam Indians. The Clallam chief might not be any more happy than me with you pitching your damn tent here. He’d tell you there is plenty of good fishing and hunting land farther down the river, so get you ass off Clallam territory.

The timber industry is HUGE in Clallam county. You cannot drive the 50 miles from Port Angeles to Forks without passing 6 timber trucks with logs headed to the mill in Port Angeles. The trees are mostly from timber companies or the National Forest lands. We have no shortage of wood for houses. It is “green spaces” that are disappearing here and all over the planet, especially Brazil.

There is no law that says what I am “legally entitled” to outside my property taxes. This is some bullshit derivative from your “liberty rights”stuff. I have full legal entitlement to my land, having paid $110,000 to the previous owner. The title is registered at the county. The only thing I owe the community for it is the $10,400 I paid in property taxes last year. The market value of my unimproved 12 acres is ultimately what somebody is willing to pay for it. That’s all. I get unsolicited offers all the time, and the offers range from $60K to over $200K from other evil parasites who would also deprive you from pitching your tent here.

[Truth To Power]

If I didn’t own the land, it would not just be sitting there for you to pitch your tent.

You are just the person who happens to own it. If someone else owned it, they would be the ones violating my rights. I assumed that was obvious, but you seem to be having some trouble understanding the concept.

That is part of your weird “liberty rights” fantasy.

It's reality, and you know it. It was the normal condition of life for our remote ancestors for millions of years, like not being slaves. You know this.

These is not prehistoric times.

That does not affect the fact that if no landowner deprived me of my liberty, I would be at liberty to use the land, and whoever owns it is therefore taking from me.

It was owned by a timber company, and somebody else before them all the way back to the Clallam Indians.

Nope. The indigenous people had no concept of landownership. Before people like you showed up, they were unable even to conceive that anyone could be so greedy and evil that they would claim they owned the land. When they realized what the whites were up to, they were incredulous.

The Clallam chief might not be any more happy than me with you pitching your damn tent here. He’d tell you there is plenty of good fishing and hunting land farther down the river, so get you ass off Clallam territory.

Nope. Until the indigenous people figured out that the whites intended to enslave them by owning the land, they typically did not object to newcomers settling in. They understood, as you do not, that more people --> more opportunity.

The timber industry is HUGE in Clallam county. You cannot drive the 50 miles from Port Angeles to Forks without passing 6 timber trucks with logs headed to the mill in Port Angeles. The trees are mostly from timber companies or the National Forest lands. We have no shortage of wood for houses.

Have you priced a 2x4 recently?

It is “green spaces” that are disappearing here and all over the planet, especially Brazil.

Managed tree harvesting does not remove the green spaces, just cycles them around.

There is no law that says what I am “legally entitled” to outside my property taxes.

There most certainly is. The whole corpus of property law is a list of your entitlements.

This is some bullshit derivative from your “liberty rights”stuff.

"I have rights! My property rights! You don't have any rights because you don't own property!"
-- every greedy, privileged parasite ever

I have full legal entitlement to my land, having paid $110,000 to the previous owner. The title is registered at the county.

<sigh> Same as slaves in the antebellum South. Try to remember.

The only thing I owe the community for it is the $10,400 I paid in property taxes last year.

That's just what you owe legally. Rightfully, you owe just compensation for what you are taking from everyone else. You are merely accustomed to taking and not paying them for what you are taking.

It's like you have paid a thug outside the bakery for the privilege of taking bread home without paying the baker for it. Now when I propose that you should rightly pay the baker for the bread he has made rather than the thug for doing nothing, you act all butt-hurt -- because you want to be able to sell the permission to steal bread to the next thief.

The market value of my unimproved 12 acres is ultimately what somebody is willing to pay for it. That’s all.

What makes them willing to pay, hmmmm?

Blank out.

I get unsolicited offers all the time, and the offers range from $60K to over $200K from other evil parasites who would also deprive you from pitching your tent here.

See? You do understand that it's not you personally, it's the owner, whoever it is.

[Hakeer]

You are just the person who happens to own it. If someone else owned it, they would be the ones violating my rights. I assumed that was obvious, but you seem to be having some trouble understanding the concept.

It's reality, and you know it. It was the normal condition of life for our remote ancestors for millions of years, like not being slaves. You know this.

That does not affect the fact that if no landowner deprived me of my liberty, I would be at liberty to use the land, and whoever owns it is therefore taking from me.

Nope. The indigenous people had no concept of landownership. Before people like you showed up, they were unable even to conceive that anyone could be so greedy and evil that they would claim they owned the land. When they realized what the whites were up to, they were incredulous.

Nope. Until the indigenous people figured out that the whites intended to enslave them by owning the land, they typically did not object to newcomers settling in. They understood, as you do not, that more people --> more opportunity.

Have you priced a 2x4 recently?

Managed tree harvesting does not remove the green spaces, just cycles them around.

There most certainly is. The whole corpus of property law is a list of your entitlements.

"I have rights! My property rights! You don't have any rights because you don't own property!"
-- every greedy, privileged parasite ever

<sigh> Same as slaves in the antebellum South. Try to remember.

That's just what you owe legally. Rightfully, you owe just compensation for what you are taking from everyone else. You are merely accustomed to taking and not paying them for what you are taking.

It's like you have paid a thug outside the bakery for the privilege of taking bread home without paying the baker for it. Now when I propose that you should rightly pay the baker for the bread he has made rather than the thug for doing nothing, you act all butt-hurt -- because you want to be able to sell the permission to steal bread to the next thief.

What makes them willing to pay, hmmmm?

Blank out.

See? You do understand that it's not you personally, it's the owner, whoever it is.

If you are the first person to enter the movie theatre you are at “liberty” to sit anywhere you want. If you are the last to enter and all the seats are taken you have no “liberty” to sit in any seat. They are all claimed.

You say to the first guy you see, “If you weren’t here, I’d be at liberty to use this seat. You are depriving me of a seat.” He replies, “Well, I am here, and you can’t have my seat.”

This is 2024, not a million years ago when there weren’t 8 billion people and there was lots of unclaimed land. Like the filled seats in the theatre, there is no more unclaimed land except Antarctica. You were born the wrong year!
So, if you want to use somebody’s land, you need permission from whatever “thug” parasite currently owns it, or buy it yourself.
Welcome to the REAL world, pal.

My property tax is the only “just compensation” I owe the county based on the county’s estimate of its market value. That’s not just my opinion. You can go to the Clallam county courthouse and ask the auditor. I write her a check every year.

[Truth To Power]

If you are the first person to enter the movie theatre you are at “liberty” to sit anywhere you want. If you are the last to enter and all the seats are taken you have no “liberty” to sit in any seat. They are all claimed.

The theater is a privately produced space whose rightful owner grants access based on priority, not a natural resource to which all naturally have equal liberty rights. It also doesn't sell more tickets than it has seats -- or if it did, I would ask for my money back

You say to the first guy you see, “If you weren’t here, I’d be at liberty to use this seat. You are depriving me of a seat.” He replies, “Well, I am here, and you can’t have my seat.”

The seats are allocated according to a rule established by the owner. Sometimes seat numbers are on the tickets, sometimes it's festival seating. In either case, you are there by a consensual arrangement with the owner, as are the other patrons.

This is 2024, not a million years ago when there weren’t 8 billion people and there was lots of unclaimed land.

So you think the passage of time or the increase in population has somehow removed everyone's rights to liberty and made them into landowners' private property? How?

Like the filled seats in the theatre, there is no more unclaimed land except Antarctica.

When you buy a ticket, you consent to the rightful owner's seating scheme. No one ever consented to have their rights to liberty forcibly removed and made into landowners' private property.

You were born the wrong year!

Garbage. Whether you have rights or not does not depend on which year you were born.

So, if you want to use somebody’s land, you need permission from whatever “thug” parasite currently owns it, or buy it yourself.

So if the thug at the bakery had the law on his side, his thieving would somehow be rightful??

Welcome to the REAL world, pal.

Slavery. Try to remember.

My property tax is the only “just compensation” I owe the county based on the county’s estimate of its market value. That’s not just my opinion. You can go to the Clallam county courthouse and ask the auditor. I write her a check every year.

Just as by law, slave owners only owed their slaves food and a safe place to sleep, not wages.

[Hakeer]

The theater is a privately produced space whose rightful owner grants access based on priority, not a natural resource to which all naturally have equal liberty rights. It also doesn't sell more tickets than it has seats -- or if it did, I would ask for my money back

The seats are allocated according to a rule established by the owner. Sometimes seat numbers are on the tickets, sometimes it's festival seating. In either case, you are there by a consensual arrangement with the owner, as are the other patrons.

So you think the passage of time or the increase in population has somehow removed everyone's rights to liberty and made them into landowners' private property? How?

When you buy a ticket, you consent to the rightful owner's seating scheme. No one ever consented to have their rights to liberty forcibly removed and made into landowners' private property.

Garbage. Whether you have rights or not does not depend on which year you were born.

So if the thug at the bakery had the law on his side, his thieving would somehow be rightful??

Slavery. Try to remember.

Just as by law, slave owners only owed their slaves food and a safe place to sleep, not wages.

1. As usual, you missed the point: ALL THE SEATS ARE CLAIMED BY THE TIME YOU GET THERE.
Imagine it is a city council meeting. Free admission. Not seat numbers. First come, first served. All 50 chairs are occupied when you arrive. You walk up to a guy and say, “I have a liberty right to a seat. You are depriving me of a seat.”

2. Once all the land is claimed, you don’t have a “liberty right” to it any more than you have a liberty right to a seat that is already claimed. It was a different situation a million years ago when there was much unclaimed land, or if you are first to arrive at the meeting and have your choice of seats.

3. Slavery for the umpteenth time. Slaves are human beings with human rights. A piece of dirt has no human rights. If you own a slave, you are violating a person’s fundamental human rights. If you buy a piece of land, you are not violating anyone’s human right. You have no liberty to use a seat or land that is already occupied. Many people manage just fine without owning land or farming or a new Mercedes, but not if they were slaves.

4. The bakery. I bought my land from a thug, who brought it from another thug, etc. all the way back 10,000 years ago when the Clallam Indians settled here and didn’t buy it from anyone. Yeah, once land became scarce on this planet, people started taking it away from each other. In your fantasy world of prehistoric times vaulted forward into the modern era of global capitalism, all 8 billion people would live together as peaceful communalists. You are just howling at the moon.

5. The only “compensation” that Clallam county says I owe to the community is my $10,400 property tax. That’s all. You want to add on an additional sum extorted you call “compensation” or else your tent goes on my property. That additional sum is the bullshit derivative from your “liberty rights” stuff you say I owe the county.

[QatzelOk]

It's amazing to see all the posters posting how "money succesful" they are... on a thread that has zero to do with this subject.

But it's telling.

It's just another distraction from the upcoming economic collapse of the West.

When people are rioting for food in the streets, you will be killed in your fancy SUV that you thought would make you special and protected from... "the bad guys" that you have been made to fear by mass media.

Mass media distracted you in order to bankrupt your entire country (and mine), and no matter how much you have saved, you're still "going to Haiti."

Lots of ordinary Haitians thought they had it okay financially... just before their country got burned down by the oligarch class and has never recovered (though the oligarchs there are doing just fine).

[Hakeer]

It's amazing to see all the posters posting how "money succesful" they are... on a thread that has zero to do with this subject.

But it's telling.

It's just another distraction from the upcoming economic collapse of the West.

When people are rioting for food in the streets, you will be killed in your fancy SUV that you thought would make you special and protected from... "the bad guys" that you have been made to fear by mass media.

Mass media distracted you in order to bankrupt your entire country (and mine), and no matter how much you have saved, you're still "going to Haiti."

Lots of ordinary Haitians thought they had it okay financially... just before their country got burned down by the oligarch class and has never recovered (though the oligarchs there are doing just fine).

Thanks to QatzelOk for helping get this thread back on topic. I dedicate the old song “Eve of Destruction” to him. That should be his theme song. Anyway…

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-0 ... k-2024.pdf

In the CBO base case where the Congress does nothing to lower the federal deficit trajectory for the next 10 years, interest payments on the debt will be 4.1% of GDP.

That is about the same time that funds for Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare will become critical. Congress will finally be forced to do something. They can raise taxes on billionaires, or they can cut spending to support old people, poor people, and sick people. I think even QatzelOk knows that the Republicans and Democrats would have radically different approaches to both revenues and spending.

I’ll probably be dead by 2034, but I hope the young people in this country are paying attention to who they are electing in the 2030’s, because their future will depend on it.

[Truth To Power]

1. As usual, you missed the point: ALL THE SEATS ARE CLAIMED BY THE TIME YOU GET THERE.

No, as usual, YOU missed the point: everyone who is occupying a seat had to PAY for their entitlement to choose a seat, and if they want to keep depriving others of that seat after the initial period is over, THEY HAVE TO KEEP PAYING.

GET IT??? YOUR example proves ME right and YOU WRONG.

Imagine it is a city council meeting. Free admission. Not seat numbers. First come, first served. All 50 chairs are occupied when you arrive. You walk up to a guy and say, “I have a liberty right to a seat. You are depriving me of a seat.”

Yes, and he has the same liberty right to use a seat, so there has to be an allocation system. That system is called, "common courtesy," not "grabbers get ownership of everyone else's rights to liberty." Someone who occupies a seat gains absolutely no property right in it. He cannot sell it, he does not own it. What he has done is not "claim" it but occupy it: like a parking spot on a street, you have it as long as you occupy it, and while everyone else still has a liberty right to use that spot, no one else can remove your car from it because you also have a liberty right to use it, and as you are already occupying the space, by common courtesy others do not remove your car. But once you leave, you have no claim whatever to the space, and everyone else is at liberty to occupy it.

Clear?

2. Once all the land is claimed, you don’t have a “liberty right” to it any more than you have a liberty right to a seat that is already claimed.

Wrong again. "Claiming" a space does not affect anyone else's liberty rights to use it. Only occupying it does, by the rules of common courtesy, the same rules by which we pass each other on a public sidewalk and don't bump into each other. But that rule only obtains as long as you are actually there. Once you leave, your "claim" is void, and you certainly cannot "claim" more space than you actually occupy.

It was a different situation a million years ago when there was much unclaimed land, or if you are first to arrive at the meeting and have your choice of seats.

The main difference from a million years ago is that back then, greedy, evil parasites hadn't figured out how to enslave everyone else by owning the land.

3. Slavery for the umpteenth time.

Yes, because you keep proving that you have no arguments that, if valid, would not justify chattel slavery.

Slaves are human beings with human rights.

So is everyone who has a liberty right to use land to live.

A piece of dirt has no human rights.

Land is not "dirt." It is a portion of the earth's surface. You know this.

And people have a right to sustain themselves using what nature provided for all. The fact that land is not human is completely irrelevant, because many things that are not human nevertheless can never rightly be anyone's private property: the earth's atmosphere, rivers, the ocean, the sun, the letters of the alphabet, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the melody of "Greensleeves," the list goes on and on. None of them are human beings, but honest people (might not include you) are willing to know the fact that like land, someone owning them would violate others' rights.

If you own a slave, you are violating a person’s fundamental human rights.

As you also are if you own land, the sun, etc., except that in such cases you are violating everyone's fundamental human rights, not just one person's.

If you buy a piece of land, you are not violating anyone’s human right.

You most certainly and indisputably are: their natural individual liberty rights to use what nature provided equally to all. The only difference between owning slaves and owning land is that owning slaves removes people rights to liberty one person at a time, while owning land (or the sun, the letters of the alphabet, etc.) removes them one right at a time.

You have no liberty to use a seat or land that is already occupied.

Right, by the rules of common courtesy. But by those same rules, I have an ABSOLUTE right to use a seat or land that is not occupied. "Claiming" it, or claiming to own it when you are not actually there, does not affect my liberty right to use it any more than "claiming" a seat at the council meeting, a parking spot, or space to walk on a public sidewalk without actually occupying it affects others' liberty to use it. You have to actually be exercising your own liberty right to use the space by actually being on it in order to have a temporary right to exclude others from it.

Many people manage just fine without owning land or farming or a new Mercedes, but not if they were slaves.

Wrong again. Historically, slaves have sometimes risen to positions of affluence and power. This is well attested in ancient Rome. But the material condition of the landless in societies where land is privately owned has always been miserable wherever private landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners.

4. The bakery. I bought my land from a thug, who brought it from another thug, etc. all the way back 10,000 years ago when the Clallam Indians settled here and didn’t buy it from anyone.

No, back to the US government, which forcibly removed the Clallam's liberty rights to use it, and issued land patents to greedy, evil parasites who realized that by owning the land, they would be legally entitled to take everything from everyone else.

Yeah, once land became scarce on this planet, people started taking it away from each other.

Because, as with slavery, they didn't know of a better way. Now we do: the equal individual rights of all to liberty, and to just compensation for its abrogation.

In your fantasy world of prehistoric times vaulted forward into the modern era of global capitalism, all 8 billion people would live together as peaceful communalists.

No, that's just another fabrication on your part. The people of Hong Kong have lived on publicly owned land for over 170 years, and though certainly peaceful, they are not communalists.

5. The only “compensation” that Clallam county says I owe to the community is my $10,400 property tax. That’s all.

But they are incorrect, as the unimproved market value of your land proves.

You want to add on an additional sum extorted you call “compensation” or else your tent goes on my property.

It is the landowner who does the extorting, and I will thank you to remember it. I merely propose that you should pay the community of those whom you exclude from the land for what you are taking from them. You just want to keep taking it from them without paying them for it, because that is what you are accustomed to doing, and you prefer injustice that is in your narrow financial interest over justice and others' rights. Simple.

That additional sum is the bullshit derivative from your “liberty rights” stuff you say I owe the county.

You owe it to the community of those whose liberty rights you abrogate.

[Truth To Power]

It's amazing to see all the posters posting how "money succesful" they are... on a thread that has zero to do with this subject.

Not zero. The relationship is just a bit indirect. The main reasons the national debt is a problem are:
1. the unjust and economically harmful public revenue system, which penalizes productive economic activity in order to subsidize rich, greedy, privileged parasites by giving them publicly created value, instead of recovering that value for public purposes and benefit, and
2. the unjust and economically harmful debt-money system, which legally entitles private commercial banksters to create almost all the money we have to use, in order to charge interest on it.

If we used a just and economically beneficial revenue system, there would be no reason for governments to go into debt. They would have plenty of money to spend on desirable public services and infrastructure. And if we had a just and stable monetary system, the national debt would not be a source of wealth for rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

So, here we are.

[Hakeer]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/136 ... sident-us/

This bar graph shows percentage additions to the national debt by president. It start with Reagan and “supply side” economics. If you give massive tax cuts to billionaires, the benefits will “trickle down” to the rest of us. Prior to Reagan from WW2 to 1980, the national debt was growing at a moderate rate. Bush did it again and put the Iraq War on the credit card. And Trump did it again with $2 trillion tax cuts. All it does is accelerate income and wealth inequality in our country. The deficits under Obama were mostly to dig the economy out of the 2008 financial crisis caused by lack of regulation of the banks, and the deficits under Biden were mostly to recover from the COVID pandemic.

The Wharton school model estimates that, in order to just balance the federal budget – last done by Bill Clinton – we would have to cut Social Security and Medicare by 30% or raise tax revenue by 40%. That is going to be the big political fight in Congress. So far, they avoid it by just raising the debt ceiling and borrowing more money to cover the annual budget deficit. The reckoning day is coming, and it is going to be important which party controls Congress. That will determine which social class has to take most of the pain to pay for the decades of fiscal irresponsibility.

[QatzelOk]

...If we used a just and economically beneficial revenue system, there would be no reason for governments to go into debt. They would have plenty of money to spend on desirable public services and infrastructure. And if we had a just and stable monetary system, the national debt would not be a source of wealth for rich, greedy, privileged parasites....

I love the structure of: "If we used a just and economically beneficial revenue system...."

Let me write another sentence using this formulation:

""If we used a just and economically beneficial revenue system, the current banking elite would destroy our country and turn the rest of the world against us using its media power and ability to bribe and extort foreign leaders.""

This has already been tried, by Nazi Germany, Libya, and many other countries... that were destroyed in the way I mentioned above.

So just writing "If we used another system, things would be better...." is only useful information if your country has the capacity to change systems. Which it doesn't.

Just look at the clowns that are running for president. Both will do whatever the (fair-money destroying) banksters tell them to do.

[Hakeer]

I love the structure of: "If we used a just and economically beneficial revenue system...."

Let me write another sentence using this formulation:

""If we used a just and economically beneficial revenue system, the current banking elite would destroy our country and turn the rest of the world against us using its media power and ability to bribe and extort foreign leaders.""

This has already been tried, by Nazi Germany, Libya, and many other countries... that were destroyed in the way I mentioned above.

So just writing "If we used another system, things would be better...." is only useful information if your country has the capacity to change systems. Which it doesn't.

Just look at the clowns that are running for president. Both will do whatever the (fair-money destroying) banksters tell them to do.

We can debate the T2P theory of “justice” all day, or we can talk about what real world option Congress will eventually be forced to adopt over the next 10 years to either fund or drastically cut spending for Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc. as Republicans would like to do, or raise taxes on billionaires and their corporations as Democrats would like to do. Cynics and nihilists want us to believe that makes no difference, so why bother voting in this election?

[Truth To Power]

"If we used a just and economically beneficial revenue system, the current banking elite would destroy our country and turn the rest of the world against us using its media power and ability to bribe and extort foreign leaders."

This has already been tried, by Nazi Germany, Libya, and many other countries... that were destroyed in the way I mentioned above.

While there is a lot of truth in what you say, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. Nazi Germany didn't have to agree with Stalin to invade and divvy up Poland. That was a choice that had nothing to do with international banksters.

You are on firmer ground in the case of Libya, which was basically destroyed by the USA because it was a successful example of socialism in action. Although he was a dictator and loony, Qaddafi had been duly punished for Lockerbie and was keeping his nose clean when the CIA toppled his government.

I'd be interested in your list of "many" other countries that have attempted to establish justice in monetary institutions and been destroyed at the behest of banksters.

So just writing "If we used another system, things would be better...." is only useful information if your country has the capacity to change systems. Which it doesn't.

It's useful information for countries that already do have the capacity to change to a just and beneficial monetary system -- like China, Iran, North Korea and Russia -- because they are outside the banksters' orbit, and it helps create an informed and reasoned intellectual environment where it could become possible for other countries, too.

Just look at the clowns that are running for president. Both will do whatever the (fair-money destroying) banksters tell them to do.

I agree that politics in the USA is so corrupt that there is little chance of anyone who really cares for justice being elected to any high office -- and as Bill Burr noted, if they somehow did manage to get elected, they'd "get the limousine ride in Dallas."