Gradualist Fool
31st August 2006, 13:29
When I first registered here, I considered myself a Capitalist Democrat, as a result of my continuing knowledge of economics and observation that Democrats are essentially moderate Democratic Socialists. I'm anti-ideology, of course, but still...
I recognized, first, that property is defined as that which a person labors for. But a person doesn't labor for land or natural resources and touching them isn't labor, which implies Georgism, that no land or natural resources can be owned. But, recognizing that theft is founded upon historical theft and the land-value tax can't replace all taxation, I read Rawl's "A Theory of Justice," and gained insight from that. Property rights could be determined according to justice as fairness rather than classical liberal notions of inalienable property rights.
Then, just today, I suddenly realized that if property rights were established in a State of Nature (the ideal), Georgism in a State of Nature would make Capitalism impossible to justify. If we all share equal ownership of natural resources, we must therefore assert equal ownership of all goods created. Because the act of creating goods requires taking ownership of at least some natural resources. On the other hand, recognizing the inefficiency of Communism, I'm a Libertarian Socialist.
In other words, I advocate Communism, in principle, philosophically. Communism, if possible, should be established. However, based upon my knowledge of Economics, I very much doubt so and I hold equal ownership of property to be just as important as equal liberty. Though my beliefs on taxation previously centered around creating equal taxation in terms of opportunity cost, which would be progressive yet far less progressive than our current system of taxation, that might change as I'm sure the economy could allow for greater progressivity, which is, I suppose, desirable.
Still, though, I reject a number of Socialist proposals, not out of principle, but empirical observation, such as gun control, public education, and drug regulation.
I understand that all "Capitalists," aren't allowed anywhere but this forum. Technically, I advocate a mixed market which leans towards Socialism to the extent that the market will allow. If you don't allow for even Libertarian Socialists to be unblocked (excluding those Libertarian Socialists who advocate Anarchism), then, well, damn.
EDIT:
Oh, and, if you accept, it might just be better to approve my other account. I forgot my account with this site, tried to register the name 'Nathyn', then suddenly remembered this account name and logged in. So far, it's been 10 minutes and no email, so not sure if the account got created, but I'd prefer to have the username 'Nathyn,' as I am no longer a "Blue Dog Democrat," so the username is misleading.
I recognized, first, that property is defined as that which a person labors for. But a person doesn't labor for land or natural resources and touching them isn't labor, which implies Georgism, that no land or natural resources can be owned. But, recognizing that theft is founded upon historical theft and the land-value tax can't replace all taxation, I read Rawl's "A Theory of Justice," and gained insight from that. Property rights could be determined according to justice as fairness rather than classical liberal notions of inalienable property rights.
Then, just today, I suddenly realized that if property rights were established in a State of Nature (the ideal), Georgism in a State of Nature would make Capitalism impossible to justify. If we all share equal ownership of natural resources, we must therefore assert equal ownership of all goods created. Because the act of creating goods requires taking ownership of at least some natural resources. On the other hand, recognizing the inefficiency of Communism, I'm a Libertarian Socialist.
In other words, I advocate Communism, in principle, philosophically. Communism, if possible, should be established. However, based upon my knowledge of Economics, I very much doubt so and I hold equal ownership of property to be just as important as equal liberty. Though my beliefs on taxation previously centered around creating equal taxation in terms of opportunity cost, which would be progressive yet far less progressive than our current system of taxation, that might change as I'm sure the economy could allow for greater progressivity, which is, I suppose, desirable.
Still, though, I reject a number of Socialist proposals, not out of principle, but empirical observation, such as gun control, public education, and drug regulation.
I understand that all "Capitalists," aren't allowed anywhere but this forum. Technically, I advocate a mixed market which leans towards Socialism to the extent that the market will allow. If you don't allow for even Libertarian Socialists to be unblocked (excluding those Libertarian Socialists who advocate Anarchism), then, well, damn.
EDIT:
Oh, and, if you accept, it might just be better to approve my other account. I forgot my account with this site, tried to register the name 'Nathyn', then suddenly remembered this account name and logged in. So far, it's been 10 minutes and no email, so not sure if the account got created, but I'd prefer to have the username 'Nathyn,' as I am no longer a "Blue Dog Democrat," so the username is misleading.