Menu

THE UNREALITY OF JESSE MYERSON, ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE'S USEFUL IDIOT OF COMMUNISM

Recently, Rolling Stone magazine published a silly-minded story with a dangling preposition in the title, from one of their writers, Jesse Myerson, Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For


Alas, Jesse suffers from many false beliefs. He seems quite childish and his intellect stands still in arrested development.

Jesse calls for a land tax, a public bank, guaranteed government jobs for anyone who wants one, and guaranteed welfare from cradle to grave.


Debate on the land tax was settled more than 120 years ago! There are numerous works on the scheme of Henry George, all which reveal the silliness of it.

For the same, public banks were discussed and debated and refuted a century ago.

Americans already have "universal basic income" expressed in many programs — TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, SSDI, Section 8.

The entire progress of people from the savage state of tribalism to clans and from clans to feudalism and from feudalism to burghers / bourgeois and thus individualism has been the advent of property (right of ownership) moving from all to the individual. And once property of the individual has been established, the furtherance of progress has arisen solely from the diminution and mitigation of uncertainty in the face of risk.

The entire basis of society, which means friendly association and never a people ruled, a nation, a country is PROPERTY.

Americans don't live in "a society". Americans live in society, in society of property.

Property means ownership, a bundle of rights — Jus Possidendi (right for possession), Jus Utendi (right for using), Jus Abutendi (right for destroying, alienating), Jus Vindicandi (right for recovery when found in the wrongful possession of another. All courts of the Anglo-American world agree to this meaning of property, a meaning first given to humans by the ancient Roman jurists.

Poverty is the default status of humans. All humans live at bare subsistence unless something ratchets them upward.

That thing is property (right of ownership) which gets used in production, which we give another name when doing so. That name is capital. 

And when capital amplifies effort, to produce property, which can be traded in a purchase and sale, we give that kind of property another name. That name is wealth.

Willett said, 

"It seems to be a self evident proposition that no one can assume a risk in economic affairs unless he has something to lose. As it is capital that is exposed to danger it would seem that it must be the owner of the capital that is the capitalist who assumes the possibility of loss.A society in which one class of people owned the capital and another class enjoyed the unrestricted privilege of exposing it to risk would soon suffer economic shipwreck. It is the possessor of capital who is interested in its safety and he seeks to protect it by demanding for its use a return commensurate with the chance of loss to which it is exposed.
In just what sense a man can be said to run a risk of loss who has nothing to start with and who therefore cannot fail to come out from his venture at least as well off as he went in it is not easy to understand. Only those who have capital can suffer the loss of capital."

Without property and persons who put their property at risk in pursuit of profits, how can anyone be responsible enough mitigate risks? Who and by what means would they elevate all humans above bare subsistence.

Trade or commerce or authentic economics means all relevant matters to mankind regarding the purchase and sale of property. Said another way, it's the theory of trading of property for profit.

Trade is about the acquisition of rights to own stuff and production of rights to gain the power of purchasing to acquire stuff.


Politics means anti-trade. Politics is the art of using rhetoric to steal property to gain and maintain power.



Why is it, in the history of humans, that no one living under tribalism of any kind, ever lifted themselves above bare subsistence?



Has everyone forgotten the 20th Century already? How did socialism, the doctrine of collective ownership of everything made, work out for everyone? Have the names Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pol fallen through the memory hole? 



Former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov explains who are the useful idiots, people like Myserson.