Scout
----"1.¨YOU¨ARE¨COMPARING¨APPLES¨WITH¨ORANGES¨BY¨TRYING¨TO¨CLAIM
NEGATIVE¨GEARING¨IS¨JUST¨LIKE¨BUYING¨SHARES.¨NEGATIVE¨GEARING¨IS¨A
MANIPULATION¨OF¨THE¨SYSTEM.¨DELIBERATELY¨SETTING¨UP¨A¨LOSS¨TO¨MAKE
A¨CLAIM¨ON¨TAX.¨IT¨IS¨A¨LOOPHOLE¨THAT¨SHOULD¨BE¨CLOSED."

By¨negatively¨gearing,¨you¨are¨paying¨less¨tax¨because¨you¨are¨EARNING¨LESS.¨It¨is¨not¨a
loophole.¨Why¨should¨you¨pay¨tax¨on¨income¨you¨aren't¨earning?

tao
----"NO¨TAXES¨AND¨NO¨STATE¨WOULD¨MEAN¨NO¨POLICE¨¨¨THE¨WEALTHY¨WOULD
BE¨VERY¨VULNERABLE¨INDEED."

I¨don't¨know¨how¨you¨arrived¨at¨that¨conclusion.¨Somalia¨has¨no¨government¨and¨is¨an
uncivilised¨country,¨and¨even¨it¨recognises¨private¨property¨and¨has¨security.¨What¨makes¨you
believe¨a¨civilised¨people¨would¨not¨have¨ANY¨form¨of¨security¨or¨private¨property?¨There¨is
also¨no¨world¨government¨-¨each¨nation¨is¨sovereign.¨According¨to¨you,¨all¨the¨poor
countries¨should¨be¨invading¨wealth¨centres¨-¨not¨just¨the¨US,¨but¨smaller¨nations¨like
Singapore,¨UAE,¨Norway,¨Luxembourg¨etc.

The¨only¨difference¨is¨that¨sovereignty¨is¨being¨brought¨down¨to¨a¨smaller¨unit¨-¨the¨individual.

I¨could¨also¨say¨that¨if¨anything¨WOULD¨infringe¨the¨right¨to¨private¨property,¨it¨would¨be
democracy,¨but¨even¨democracy¨respects¨private¨property¨to¨some¨extent,¨and¨that¨says¨a¨lot.¨As
far¨as¨unequal¨accumulation¨of¨wealth¨is¨concerned,¨a¨system¨where¨everyone¨has¨equal¨power
and¨could¨redistribute¨everyone's¨wealth¨with¨the¨tick¨of¨a¨vote¨should¨theoretically¨be¨quite
problematic.

Regardless,¨wealth¨redistribution¨is¨wealth¨redistribution,¨and¨it¨is¨unethical.

----"WE¨SHOULD¨CONSIDER¨WHAT¨YOU¨MEAN¨BY¨PEACEFULLY¨ACQUIRED
PROPERTY.¨IN¨THIS¨COUNTRY¨IN¨PARTICULAR,¨AND¨IN¨MOST¨OTHER¨COUNTRIES,
THE¨TRANSITION¨TO¨PRIVATE¨PROPERTY¨WAS¨ANYTHING¨BUT¨PEACEFUL¨AND
DID¨IN¨FACT¨REQUIRE¨GREAT¨COERCION¨–¨VIOLENT¨COERCION.¨NOT¨ONLY¨THAT,
IT¨DENIED¨THE¨“NATURAL¨RIGHT¨TO¨FREEDOM¨AND¨PROPERTY”¨FOR¨THE
ORIGINAL¨INHABITANTS¨OF¨THIS¨LAND.¨NOT¨ONLY¨THAT,¨IT¨DENIED¨MANY¨OF
THEM¨THEIR¨RIGHT¨TO¨LIFE.¨THAT¨REDISTRIBUTION¨OF¨WEALTH¨WAS
COMPLETELY¨UNETHICAL,¨AND¨JUSTIFIED¨BY¨AN¨IDEALISTIC¨SUBJECTIVE
FANTASY¨IMPOSED¨ON¨OTHERS."

I¨don't¨disagree¨with¨you¨about¨that,¨but¨what¨happened¨200¨years¨ago¨is¨irrelevant.¨How¨far
back¨do¨you¨want¨to¨go?¨What¨about¨countries¨that¨were¨annexed¨by¨the¨Roman¨empire?
Neither¨the¨aboriginals¨whose¨property¨rights¨were¨violated¨nor¨those¨who¨violated¨their¨rights
are¨alive¨today.¨It¨is¨ridiculous¨to¨try¨and¨designate¨responsibility¨to¨people¨alive¨today¨for
something¨that¨happened¨centuries¨ago.¨Besides,¨it¨isn't¨unethical¨to¨trade¨something¨that¨was
previously¨unethically¨acquired.

----"FIRSTLY,¨WHO¨IS¨DECIDING¨THAT¨“FRUITS¨OF¨OUR¨LABOUR”¨DO¨NOT¨BELONG
TO¨“SOCIETY¨AS¨A¨WHOLE?¨IS¨THAT¨JUST¨YOUR¨OPINION,¨OR¨IS¨IT¨A¨FACT?¨IF
THE¨MAJORITY¨DECIDE¨THAT¨THE¨FRUITS¨OF¨THEIR¨LABOUR¨DO¨BELONG¨TO
SOCIETY¨AS¨A¨WHOLE,¨WHAT¨IS¨THE¨FACT?"

A¨person¨owns¨their¨body¨(because¨they¨are¨their¨body)¨and¨therefore¨their¨own¨actions/labour.
The¨"fruits¨of¨one's¨labour"¨is¨the¨sum¨of¨their¨labour,¨and¨therefore¨IS¨their¨labour.¨For¨anyone
else¨to¨claim¨ownership¨of¨this¨labour¨without¨the¨permission¨of¨the¨labourer¨is¨enslavement,
and¨violates¨the¨nature¨of¨the¨relationship¨between¨the¨individual¨and¨their¨body.

----"IF¨“NEITHER¨YOU¨NOR¨ANYBODY¨ELSE¨IS¨ENTITLED¨TO¨THE¨WEALTH
CREATED¨BY¨ANOTHER”¨AND¨“THE¨"FRUITS¨OF¨OUR¨LABOUR"¨BELONG¨TO
WHICHEVER¨INDIVIDUALS¨LABOURED¨TO¨OBTAIN¨THEM”,¨WHY¨IS¨IT¨THAT¨5%
OF¨PEOPLE¨OWN¨95%¨OF¨THE¨WEALTH?¨5%¨OF¨PEOPLE¨SURELY¨CAN’T¨HAVE
DONE¨ENOUGH¨LABOUR¨TO¨PRODUCE¨95%¨OF¨THE¨WEALTH.¨OF¨COURSE,¨YOU
SAID¨“OBTAIN”¨NOT¨“PRODUCE”.¨THERE¨IS¨PROBABLY¨A¨DISTINCTION.¨ANYWAY,
I’LL¨BE¨INTERESTED¨TO¨READ¨YOUR¨EXPLANATION."

Don't¨assume¨the¨phrase¨"the¨"fruits¨of¨our¨labour"¨belong¨to¨whichever¨individuals¨laboured¨to
obtain¨them"¨solely¨defines¨what¨ethical¨wealth¨accumulation¨is.¨After¨all,¨people¨can¨receive
gifts¨or¨win¨large¨amounts¨of¨wealth.¨It¨also¨does¨not¨specify¨any¨AMOUNT¨of¨labour,¨which
you¨seem¨to¨have¨assumed¨it¨does.¨The¨reason¨only¨a¨small¨portion¨of¨the¨population¨who¨have
earned¨so¨much¨more¨wealth¨than¨everyone¨else¨has¨been¨able¨to¨do¨so¨is¨the¨same¨reason¨that
there¨are¨so¨few¨people¨who¨can¨bench¨press¨over¨1000lbs,¨or¨sprint¨100m¨in¨under¨10¨seconds:
people¨are¨different,¨and¨some¨are¨better¨than¨others¨at¨certain¨things.¨In¨this¨case,¨the¨game
happens¨to¨be¨meeting¨people's¨demands.¨A¨person¨does¨not¨earn¨commonly¨recognised¨wealth
by¨creating¨something¨that¨nobody¨wants,¨regardless¨of¨how¨hard¨they¨work.¨In¨fact¨a¨person
could¨spend¨almost¨no¨effort¨at¨all¨and¨earn¨an¨enourmous¨amount¨of¨wealth,¨just¨by¨supplying
a¨product¨that¨people¨want.

Free¨market¨capitalism¨also¨allows¨people¨to¨use¨their¨wealth¨to¨create¨more¨wealth¨-¨just¨like
machinery¨helps¨us¨build¨structures¨that¨are¨larger¨and¨take¨less¨time¨to¨build¨than¨they¨do¨with
our¨bare¨hands.

Redistribution¨of¨wealth¨is¨based¨solely¨on¨envy.¨People¨may¨believe¨that¨services¨such¨as
education,¨healthcare,¨and¨electricity¨are¨"rights",¨but¨these¨things¨never¨existed¨200¨years¨ago,
and¨humans¨have¨been¨around¨for¨how¨many¨years?¨How¨can¨they¨possibly¨be¨natural¨rights,
especially¨when¨someone¨else¨is¨required¨to¨provide¨them?

You¨also¨claim¨"we"¨shouldn't¨be¨paying¨sportspeople¨exorbitant¨amounts,¨but¨exactly¨who¨is
this¨so¨detrimental¨to?¨Is¨a¨person¨starving¨BECAUSE¨a¨sportsperson¨was¨paid¨a¨large¨amount?
Who¨was¨coerced¨when¨a¨sportsperson¨was¨paid¨a¨large¨amount?¨When¨someone¨comes¨up¨to
you¨and¨points¨a¨gun¨in¨your¨face¨and¨says¨"Tiger¨Woods¨collection¨agency.¨Give¨me¨your
money¨or¨else!",¨then¨you¨can¨complain.

You¨need¨to¨keep¨in¨mind¨that¨when¨a¨sportsperson¨or¨someone¨else¨is¨paid¨a¨large¨amount¨of
wealth¨for¨business¨purposes,¨it¨is¨an¨exchange,¨not¨a¨transfer.¨Wealth¨is¨not¨"lost"¨to¨the¨person.
When¨such¨a¨person¨is¨paid¨a¨large¨amount¨of¨money¨for¨business¨purposes,¨they¨will¨give
something¨in¨return.¨In¨such¨a¨case,¨the¨person¨CREATED¨some¨wealth,¨then¨exchanged¨it¨for
a¨form¨of¨currency.

Good post Scout!

Ah Col,

Again, no attempt to explain your mythical “opportunity for equality”.

Of course I wouldn’t expect you find what I think relevant, nor the millions of people all over the world who are forced to live the reality of poverty, disease and war because of the ideology you adhere to. No need to follow any accepted principals of evidence or support for a conclusion. As long as you can rationalize your delusions in your own mind, that is all that matters.

As your little mate Johnny’s best friend W. says – some people live in the reality based community, while others – such as you, him and little Johnny, live in the faith based community.

And again, forced to come up with some more puerile nonsense about me being one and the same as Tristan. As I have said before, I fundamentally disagree with Tristan.

It should also be noted that making criticisms of what you perceive to be my “quest” in no way supports your own argument. Another diversionary tactic.

You said: “FACT---Everything-which-I-promote-diametrically-opposes-the-notions-of-Divine-Right-of-Kings-and-stands-squarely-against-all-forms-of-religious-or-authoritarian-social-orders.”

Considering your refusal (or inability) to base your own ideology on any sound evidence or premise, that ideology cannot be considered anything but a religious belief in the mythical God “market” with “rule of law” being the equivalent of the 10 Commandments, and the state being the equivalent of the Church.

Your own little mate Johnny even tells us that our laws are based on the good book. W. thinks God tells him how to run the U.S.

Captialism, which was once a progressive force, must now return to reactionary mythology to support itself as is evidenced by the rise of the religious right – the most backward section of society. The next thing to come will be facsim – if it has not already begun to assert itself in the U.S.

You can accuse me of being anything under the sun if you like Col, but none of it changes the sad, sad fact that your whole life is based on a lie. Enjoy!

tristan, "You can accuse me of being anything under the sun if you like Col, but none of it changes the sad, sad fact that your whole life is based on a lie. Enjoy! "

The shame of all this is, you just do not get it, Tristan.

Pontificating around like some high priest of socialism is as old hat and rancid as Beazley's beer gut.

Thinking that anyone would take you "seriously" is pure delusion.

You do not have the courage to stand behind your views, if you did, you would go to the public in an election with them instead of playing "dress-up emperor" in your own private little world.

As for "sad". I am the one who is laughing all the way to the bank on what you suggest is a "lie" .

I am the one who is suggesting anyone else can do as I do and make themselves financially independent so they do not have to kowtow to some tosser of a non-thinker.

Conversely, what do you offer? High taxes and servitude to the State. HArdly original, no new ideas, no inspiration, just the dead hand of bureaucratic levellers.

If I ever met you I will happily drop a five dollar bill in the gutter, just to watch to see how fast you roll over to pick it up.

I suggest you "Enjoy" - if you have not run away again already.

Col,

You are becoming hysterical. I’m sure the veins must be popping out of the side of your head.

You’re still carrying on about this Tristan/Tao crap. You have obviously lost all self-respect.

And finally the truth – all you are interested in is the money – that is how you measure your worth, and that of others. All the pretense of personal development out the window. In the end, all the venomous contempt for others that you so readily display only serves to demonstrate to us all how much you actually hate yourself.

G T – that was the biggest load of internally contradicted rubbish – even bigger than Col’s. You can’t even understand what I have written – or probably even what you yourself have written.

Tao/Tristan “You are becoming hysterical. I’m sure the veins must be popping out of the side of your head.’

Oh pleased that from your dull environs, you at least see the emotion. Passion is a great motivator, you could do with some instead of the blandness and sterility demanded from bureaucratic levelling - but throbbing veins – hardly.

“Self-Respect” it is your own lack of it which blinds you from seeing it in others. Mine is very healthy and reinforced by the numbers of friends in my address book and the love I receive from my partner and daughters (as well as those aforementioned friends).

“all you are interested in is the money” Wrong, plenty of things interest me, freedom of choice and expression most of all. Without freedom of choice we are mere drones of the state, which is where you would place us, all subjugated by your “collective”.

Then of course the arts interest me, Mozart, Canaletto, Cellini being among my favourites. Florence, being the City I would most like to return to (I just love the Uffizi – and would be surprised if you have even heard of it).

Oh, money does interest me, not for its own sake but for the security and comforts it buys.

Finally “hate myself”?

Only the smallest of small minded tosser’s would suggest such a thing.

What you read and glean of me from these few words on this website are but a microcosm of who I am, what I do and what interests me, the entirety of which would be, clearly, beyond you.

GT keep up the pace, little tristan (and his non-de-plume, tao) is in retreat, it is only his foolish arrogance which is keeping him here.

Scout – whatever! When you get around to understanding basic economic, accounting and taxation principles, you might understand what I was talking about. Until then, your home-spun theories on Negative Gearing are strictly for the small minded wannabes who live in envy of those who have the courage to get off their butts and put their money where their mouths are.

G T

You wrote: I¨don't¨disagree¨with¨you¨about¨that,¨but¨what¨happened¨200¨years¨ago¨is¨irrelevant.¨How¨far
back¨do¨you¨want¨to¨go?¨What¨about¨countries¨that¨were¨annexed¨by¨the¨Roman¨empire?
Neither¨the¨aboriginals¨whose¨property¨rights¨were¨violated¨nor¨those¨who¨violated¨their¨rights
are¨alive¨today.¨It¨is¨ridiculous¨to¨try¨and¨designate¨responsibility¨to¨people¨alive¨today¨for
something¨that¨happened¨centuries¨ago.¨Besides,¨it¨isn't¨unethical¨to¨trade¨something¨that¨was
previously¨unethically¨acquired

What convenient date would you like history to start at? As is typical of your ilk, you like to deny or ignore parts of history that don’t suit your own argument as though some aliens just came down to earth and plonked the human race, and everything it has built here yesterday. Human beings, and human progress, don’t exist in a vacuum. Everything we have and are today is a result of what happened yesterday, 100 years ago, or 30,000 years ago.

What happened 200 years ago is relevant, because if it hadn’t happened, you probably wouldn’t be here.

Haven’t you ever heard of the crime of receiving stolen goods?

You’re the one that said forced redistribution of wealth is unethical, and now you want to say the forced redistribution of wealth that happened 200 years ago is irrelevant. You can’t have it both ways. We can “unethically” and forcefully redistribute the wealth that exists now which would raise a hue and cry amongst your lot, but in 200 years we can say it is irrelevant – so I say we should start tomorrow.

The fact is that people who own the land which was originally unethically and forcefully appropriated, deny others who are equally entitled to the use of that land (by virtue of being human) off the land, and only allow them back on to “produce wealth” for the landowner for payment of wages - because otherwise they would starve. Not long ago it was called serfdom or slavery.

The state exists to police this. If there were no taxes, there would be no “public” police force, and wealthy people would have to pay a private police force – if they didn’t, why would would-be police, protect the interests of a minority?

Cont...