Freedomain Radio

Would you expand on why selling federal lands to provide resitution to those who have paid into social security, as a buyout, is not a good idea?  I'm sure I'm missing something, but the Govt took money from the citizens and should give it back.  The government can't give cash, because all cash is taxes, but they do have large land holdings that they should/could sell off to the private sector. 

The government can always come back and reposses the land from any private citizien, so I can't think of a reason NOT to sell it off, and buy our "social security accounts" out.

Because those who are 'owed' social security aren't the legal owners of government property, so giving them the proceeds of the sale would be creating property rights where none exist.

Plus, the process would be completely corrupt, and none of the money would end up in the hands of the elderly anyway.

And there would be a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the aged, since the money used to pay for govt property would have to come from somewhere - from salaries, from increases in the price of goods and so on. As the wealthiest generation in the history of the planet, I think the aged will survive.

Harry had to take this approach because he was running for office, and so had to appease the elderly, who vote more than anyone else.

I don't have a good solution to how to dissolve govt ownership, but the money should go back to the people proportional to the taxes they have paid. DROs would manage this process - ideas on how are always welcome of course!

I don't have a good solution to how to dissolve govt ownership,

Why wouldn't this just be the natural consequence of the dissolution of the state? What would be wrong with the land simply returning to a 'state of nature', upon which, any individuals with the wherewithal to invest could simply purchase it, and then demarcate it, through a DRO?

but the money should go back to the people proportional to the taxes they have paid.

But, doesn't this contradict earlier discussions, where we seemed to come to the conclusion that once a tax is rendered unto the state, it would be impractical to attempt reclamation, because the evidence of ownership is lost? Based on those earlier arguments, wouldn't it be more reasonable to argue that the losses incurred while under the jurisdiction of the state are simply suffered? That all assets once claimed by those who bore the rubrik of "state" are now simply 'in a state of nature'?

Of course, the implications of this are pretty ugly. I'm thinking stampede here. But, if we're to be intellectually honest, don't we have to accede to the fact that a true proportion could never really be equitably determined?

 

Oh, wait. nevermind: Purchase it from whom?   Duh...

admin wrote:

Because those who are 'owed' social security aren't the legal owners of government property, so giving them the proceeds of the sale would be creating property rights where none exist.

No, they aren't owners.  If I owe someone money, I could sell my property to cover my liabilities.  I'm sure the process would be completely corrupt, but selling assest to cover liabilities doesn't imply the debtors have a right to your property, with the exception of collateral.

The price of goods should go down.  For example, if the timber industry could have access to large amounts of federal land, the price of wood would decline.  Probably the amount of bribes, licensing, taxes they already pay are higher than the outright cost of ownership.  The same would hold true for oil, or any resource for that matter.  And hey, its a free economy, if it isn't economically viable to buy the land, the land would not be sold and no cash transferred.

 

Wait....about Harry Brown's plan.  Was that to keep paying benefits, pay the people already retired, or buyout the total Social Security contributions of everyone in America?  Sorta wipe the slate clean?  "We took it from you, and now we are giving it back."

Those are excellent points, but I have a different take on lenders. If I owe money, and can't pay it in cash, the lender does own my property, so I think the metaphor holds.

The price of goods will go up, not down in the short run, since hundreds of billions of dollars of capital will be invested in purchasing property rather than in process improvements and so on.

But the question remains: who owns govt property?

What are your thoughts?

gmgauthi wrote:

But, doesn't this contradict earlier discussions, where we seemed to come to the conclusion that once a tax is rendered unto the state, it would be impractical to attempt reclamation, because the evidence of ownership is lost? Based on those earlier arguments, wouldn't it be more reasonable to argue that the losses incurred while under the jurisdiction of the state are simply suffered? That all assets once claimed by those who bore the rubrik of "state" are now simply 'in a state of nature'?

I thought the discussion earlier wasn't about tax reclaimation, but it would be impossible to go to your neighbor that has received welfare their whole life to demand money back from them.  It was already spent.

I think this is different because liability is between the citizen and the government, not between individuals.  If the only government revenue stream is taxation, then you can't justify continued theft to pay back a previous wrong...the cycle will never end.  But the if the government can sell land and generate a revenue stream, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect some recompense if the debts can be paid ethically.

And I think the idea was that if reclamation was possible, DROs would be the only groups that could justly pursue it...

argh. I'm trying to reply, and it's HAPPENING AGAIN... (getting the 'unable to service request' error)...

 

Yeah, I'm getting it too, I'll email godaddy again (sigh!) - I think that our board activity is just a little higher than most  (I just saw 37 guests!)

Hmm... I wonder what it would take to export/convert this database....

 

I hear it's a bit of a 'black box'...

Damn... commercially licensed! That's a drag. Still, if they've got a published data model, it might not be too difficult to write a convertor for some other... ahem... -- potential host's message board app (OPEN SOURCE, OPEN SOURCE, OPEN SOURCE!!)....

Greg, Community Server is an open source platform.  There is a free licensing option, which is exactly the same but without the CS ad at the bottom.  You can learn more about Community Server here. (http://communityserver.org/)  The 2.1 Beta build is compiling as I type and will be released publicly by the end of the week.