Kurland v. Turnbull

["Thomas Brandt" <tbrandt@dbedt.hawaii.gov>]

To Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Kurland:

I want to make sure I understand the essence of your disagreement, so I would
appreciate it if you could comment on the following summary of my understanding.
 I apologize to both of you and everyone else if I'm the only one who doesn't
grasp this.

My impression is that your differences boil down to this: 

Mr. Turnbull feels property ownership should be time-limited like patents, but
advocates only tax  incentives--rather than coercion/confiscation--to broaden
ownership of existing property and capital (as well as new capital created by
future econ growth and money supply expansion).  

Mr. Kurland thinks ownership of existing property and capital should remain
inviolable (except for incentives to encourage ESOPs and other Kelsonian
alternatives e.g. CSOP, RECOP, etc??), and that COG efforts should focus
exclusively on broadening ownership of capital created by future econ growth and
money supply expansion.  

Most puzzling to me is Mr. Kurland's condemnation of Mr. Turnbull's advocacy of
using the tax system to induce owners of global corporations to sunset their
ownership rights.  In addition to ESOP tax incentives (which I thought Mr.
Kurland supported), Mr. Kurland also advocates elimination of the double tax on
corporate profits, making dividends deductible at the corporate level and tax
deferred, and inheritance law reforms.  I see little difference in the
ostensible level of "coercion" in either strategy.  Both seem more feasible and
"voluntary" to me than efforts to democratize the money supply (as desirable as
that may be).   

If I've oversimplified or otherwise distorted your positions, please let me
know.  If not, it seems your similarities greatly exceed your differences.  

Mahalo and Aloha!