|
posted by dennisn on July 4th, 2023 at 8:11PM
> as laconic as possible
You failed miserably dude.
(So you ARE ZC?!?)
> zerocontradictions...
A while ago you made me read this link, https://zerocontradictions...-connection.html ... and then refused to hear all my points about it. Looool.
*Reads the notes that I still surprisingly have about it*
1. Who decides who gets how much land? Who decides who gets the best locations?
2. You think that things that have a fixed supply (ie. everything) should be taxed. Who determines the tax rate, who provides the enforcers, who is in control of the stolen money (or do you now support the option to opt out?), and why do overt taxation when you can just print your money - taxation by inflation?
3. How close are humans to their ecosystem's "carrying capacity", now? Some faggot (Ehrlich) similarly got his panties all wet and tied in a knot when he predicted, with certainty, that humans were on the verge of real overpopulation, and that scarcity and famines and devastation was coming. He famously bet money on this. He was wrong (due to advancements in tech (gmo's), etc etc). Are you sure you aren't Yet Another Gay Ehrlich? ;)
4. You didn't care about your fellow humans a few months ago, when you were informed about ideas like Liberland - your credibility is ~zero. You didn't chastise Blithering when he "jokingly" said he'd murder me and a lot of other innocent people.
5. You mentioned "establishing a maximum population limit". What do you think that is? Who gets to choose this number? Is it a global number? Continental? Regional?
6. "Georgist economic reasoning thus concludes that the fairest solution would be to auction off the right" ... That's simply logically false, the ancap solution doesn't involve any enslavement or initiation of violence - ie. it's "fairer". But anyways, have you considered a meritocratic distribution, rather than this dumb random auction? Why would a random distribution be fairer than allowing those who deserve things more to get more? A meritocracy would be more eugenic - don't you support eugenics?
7. "Anybody who occupies geographic land for themselves prevents everybody else from being able to occupy that land" ... The same argument applies to women. Marrying Riya prevents others from being able to marry her. Riya, and females in general, are also in finite supply, like land. So by your logic .... YOU will decide who Riya marries, and it'll change every year, or every month, or every day, to let anyone who wants her to get her? But even that won't really be fair cuz most guys will want her when she's young, but I guess that's as perfect a system as you can think of - you'll just randomly auction off her recurring marriages, monthly?
8. How would you allocate "land" to people living in cities - people who mostly live in the air in skyscrapers? Are they going to be allotted parcels of land outside the city borders? Or are they going to be guaranteed floor space in apartments? Is a square foot of apartment just as valuable as a square foot of farmland? Who determines the price of all this? Who decides who gets the lake-facing apartments?
9. Did you ever criticize Blithering for having 5 kids? Isn't having 5 kids bad, according to you?
10. Given that most people are obese (ie. an oversupply of food), and most land is empty, isn't it retarded to be worrying about overpopulation now? Like, if you became president, would you start implementing your psycho policies immediately, or maybe after people started losing weight and after they started fighting for scraps of food and land amongst each other? Ie. how urgent is this crusade of yours?
11. "guarantee equal land rights for everybody" ... what the fuck does that even mean? You're going to guarantee me land in Venice? And considering we won't be free to have real sex on that land, and we won't be free to ret our land out, or to sell it, and we won't be free to decide where our money goes ... uhhhh ... what a shitty hell dude. What is your major malfunction?
12. "if we want to select for people who will generate more wealth for the rest of society to enjoy, then we need to eliminate rent-seeking, which is defined as gaining wealth without producing wealth" ... that's literally what you're pushing for ... stealing other people's money without producing anything, just road blocks and regulations and bureaucracies for corruption to fester in.
13. "Someone who acquires their wealth via rent-seeking is someone who did not generate any new wealth to society" ... *moves the mirror in front of your ugly "Georgist" central-planning totalitarian face*
14. "Reproduction Tax Rates should be set by market forces" ... why not by expert eugenicists? Your whole point lies on the premise that free individuals (the free market) is too retarded to manage their own birth rates on their own, so why should they be allowed to set the rates? Obviously they'll set them super low or something that'll cause overpopulation?
15. "dysgenics and overpopulation are both developing due to the elimination of selectionary pressures on the human population" .... and your proposals contribute to this! Instead of having meritocratic or expert driven selection pressures, you want to have it random!? A random lottery! Back to the drawing board, loser. Try to dial down the evil next time!
|
posted by dennisn on July 5th, 2023 at 11:22AM
> 1. Who decides who gets how much land?
You didn't answer that. Will the rich be allotted the same amount as the poor in your totalitarian state? And who determines what that allotment area will be?
> 2. "Auctions determine the tax rates" .. what? auctions would determine the price of the good, but who determines what the tax rate should be? 10% 90%?
> who provides the enforcers
Ie. there are countless ways of enforcing rules, ranging from pretty passive shaming and the honor system, to draconian armed men in black. Who decides which style of enforcement is best?
> why do overt taxation when you can just print your money - taxation by inflation
You didn't answer this. Will you make bitcoin illegal? ;) (You can't tax bitcoin, nor print more of it.)
> It is utterly unreasonable to allow [people] to profit billions of dollars just because they claimed that land first under a finders’ keepers system.
I utterly disagree. I think it's utterly unreasonable to allow uninvolved latecomers who didn't contribute anything (in exploration, construction, awareness, etc) to waltz in late and simply take other people's shit. You also seem to be clueless about how hard it is to make a profit, and to sustain a business. You think it's easy/automatic - clearly you've never been involved in any business. Dunning-Kruger.
> (and maybe receive some welfare in return)
Oh so in addition to managing land allocation and sales, in addition to managing people's breeding, Big Brother is also supposed to do "welfare". "Free" food and housing, and lots of other "free" things for unproductive bums, and enslavement of the productive people ... UTTERLY REASONABLE, and totally definitely not dysgenic ;). Damn. You don't think that welfare played a huge role in the demise of the african-american population in the US? Or on native-indian reservations?
> 3. How close are humans to their ecosystem's "carrying capacity", now?
You didnt answer. And this is at the core of your crusade - if you have no clue what this number is, your entire position is batshit crazy. Your concept of "overpopulation" is nonsensical/fake.
> Erhlich would've won the second bet, if he took up the offer
Amazing. So that fag's passionate doomsday theories were completely and utterly and catastrophically destroyed, like UTTERLY, but you still think he was right, about anything?? Insane. No humility. No sanity. Ehrlich was CONVINCED that we were at/near capacity, and that we'd be running out of "fixed natural resources". Just like you are now. Imagine if we had psychos like you in power at that time, just a few decades ago, implementing all sorts of rationing and taxes and regulations to manage those last precious few resources. Hahahahah. Holy fuck man you're psycho and dangerous. Thank god you have zero power.
> 4. Yeah, because why would we chastize BG for making a joke that was obviously satirical? Hahahaha! It's so funny how you were so offended by that line <3
No he was serious, and so were you. Neither of you are sure about allowing people to opt out, and seriously lean towards not allowing it. BG was serious about not allowing secession to happen, for various reasons ... control over resources (which you literally just said should be up to a mafia and not a first-comer), national security (you dont want a potentially hostile nation with nukes as your neighbour) etc etc. It's interesting how you reflexively realized how batshit crazy and violent that position is -- "OBVIOUSLY SATIRICAL HAHAHAHA" -- the nasty reality of your positions is pretty horrendous eh? Psychos.
> 5. You mentioned "establishing a maximum population limit". What do you think that is? Who gets to choose this number? Is it a global number? Continental? Regional?
You didn't answer. You couldn't be bothered to type ~5 words. But you have no problem repeating how much you hate displays of emotion, and naughty words ;). It's funny how you can't answer the basic core questions of your belief system. And I know why you can't, there is no answer, not even a range. I mean sure it's finite, but it can be anything from 1 billion to 100 billion - ie. effectively limitless. There is no objective "maximum population" - different people different cultures have different preferences for living density, for family sizes, etc. Also, the question of jurisdiction exposes the absurdity of your position - it's inherently global/universal, but that reality is too nasty and absurd to consider. Like, the idea that your gay ass should have any say about how some remote island should live is ludicrous. Or imagine that tiny remote island has some precious mineral that that your faggot country needs for some tech - by your gay logic obviously those lucky first-comer islanders have no legitimate claim to value under their feet so obviously you are justified in invading them and extracting those resources, "for the greater good" ofc. Whenever we scratch the surface of your gay (and boring and plagiarized) totalitarian visions, we quickly see how nasty and violent and insane they are - that's why you always avoid these basic core questions.
> 6. Why would a random distribution be fairer than allowing those who deserve things more to get more? A meritocracy would be more eugenic - don't you support eugenics?
You didn't answer this. Having more money is a poor proxy for actually being better. Especially for you, since you lost faith in the free market. There are sooo many stories of productive geniuses (like Tesla) who were broke in the latter stages of their lives. So, again, why should some corrupt politically connected rent-seeker get more than productive geniuses like Tesla? Why not have a central committee that decides things based on merit, instead of blind wallet balances, since you're already fully committed to a totalitarian central bureaucracy?
> 7. as perfect a system as you can think of - you'll just randomly auction off her recurring marriages, monthly? ... "You're right, that's true."
What? So Big Brother will also manage marriages, and they won't be life-long, in order to share that finite resource? What?
> 8. Are they going to be allotted parcels of land outside the city borders? Or are they going to be guaranteed floor space in apartments?
You didn't answer. Again, these are the basic core questions about your ideology, and you can't (won't ;) answer them. ;)
> 9. Did you ever criticize Blithering for having 5 kids? Isn't having 5 kids bad, according to you? ... "No, because he can have any many children as he wants, as long as he meets the requirements for a reproduction license"
But I thought the planet was OVERPOPULATED by humans. Holy fuck you're incoherent. This all got started cuz you were convinced that we're on the verge of starvation and overconsumption and overbreeding, and now you're letting that ONE basically-unemployed unproductive fag have FIVE kids?!? So your "friends" are allowed to have FIVE kids ... but other people can only have ~2.5 (at/below the population replacement rate?) Hahahaha. The corruption has ALREADY started! Rules for THEE but not for ME (and my pals). Fuck off. Nobody takes you seriously, least of all yourself.
> 10. if you became president, would you start implementing your psycho policies immediately
You didn't answer.
> how urgent is this crusade of yours?
You didn't answer. How close to overpopulation are we now dude?? This is the CORE of your fucking position! You should have some estimate! What would the first warning signs be of a problem on the horizon, with respect to overpopulation/overconsumption. Obviously some form of food shortages and decreasing waistlines, surely? And obviously we're not there yet? Looooool. Clown world.
> You're going to guarantee me land in Venice?
You didn't answer. But from the other shit you said here, sounds like "no". So the politically connected insiders will get to live in ~10 square meters in beautiful Venice, and the deplorables will live on ~10 square meters of desert wasteland in Buttfuck-Nowhere. Typical classic commie. Siiiiigh. So boring. You think you're onto something new here?? :PP.
I mean, freedom / capitalism / reality already kinda does this on it's own, obviously the smarter/better people will get more, but again, since you're already so committed to a central bureauracy to micro-manage everything, why not also step in and help the poor Teslas out a bit? You're incoherent. Either freedom / the free market can be relied on to allocate resources, or it can't. Which is it!?
> everyone has an equal right to land, thus everyone [has] an equal opportunity to be as productive as anyone else.
But your system violates this! Again, you're insane and incoherent. You think the rich and politically-connected should get the better and more productive lots of land/floor-space! Which will give them much more opportunity to be productive, and increase iNeqUaliTy (both of opportunity and outcome).
> 12. rent-seeking ... gaining wealth without producing wealth ... "No, that's not what we're promoting"
Looool. It LITERALLY is. You and your central bureaucrats are simply taking other people's wealth, and aren't producing anything. Now, you can say that this grift, this friction, these regulations and "taxes" are necessary for the maintenance of society, but you can't say it isn't happening! Most people have to sweat in factories and fields and other dirty places, while you fat fucks get to sit around and skim money off their paycheques and decide who gets to share in that LITERALLY-stolen loot. There are the producers, and there are the moochers.
> 13. Prove that Georgism enables rent-seeking.
It literally is rent-seeking, by definition ... gaining [skimming other people's] wealth without producing anything.
> 14. why not [manage breeding] by expert eugenicists [instead of the free market]?
You didn't answer the question. Who decides who's allowed to breed, and how much they're allowed to breed? Who decides if BG is allowed to have 5 kids?
> no, we don't want laissez faire eugenics. That's a retarded idea
That's YOUR fucking idea, you un-self-aware drone. YOUR faggot idea is that the richest people should get to do more of it (not completely free, but more free than a proper expert-managed breeding regime). So which is it ... laissez faire the rich and successful to decide the future gene pool, or expert phd eugenicists?? Is the free market responsible enough to decide the fate of the gene pool or not?? Loooool. You're a mess.
> And no, birth rates are NOT self-regulating:
Right, so that implies that the free market is too retarded to do this, so why are you letting them pick their mates?? If they're so stupid that they can't stop themselves from starving to death, why are you allowing them to choose the traits of the future generations?? Haaaaahahaha.
> Hopefully that answered all your questions.
So in conclusion, as expected, most were not answered. And my "questions" were mostly rhetorical and socratic you arrogant faggot :P. I already know the answers, and I already basically know your positions. None of this is new, you're just another boring commie. You are the majority, amoral opportunistic dishonest thieves/monkeys. My main intention (the main intention of socratic questions) was to expose the absurdity of your positions, reductio ad absurdum ... but looool ... OBVIOUSLY that didn't work on you :DDD. (It doesn't work on anyone, I need to stop wasting my finite life on retards like you, as Riya said :|)
> You never would've asked them in the first place if you spent more time reading the FAQs, but at least you argued in good faith.
You do not argue in good faith. Those gay links you keep pasting are so full of holes and logical mistakes, each one would require a seperate day of my life to correct. Like in point 11 above, you linked to a really really stupid page about "equal rights to land", which didn't answer my question, and only ADDED to the incoherence of your position - your commie ideology does NOT give me an equal right to land in Venice! It does NOT give me an equal right to equally productive land! You are dishonest and insane, and dumb.
|
posted by Ex-Ancap on July 5th, 2023 at 11:57AM
1. Yes, if they pay for it. No, if they don't want to pay it. It's not just about the allotment *area*, it's also about the allotment's *value*.
2. The government enforces the law. Land value is taxed at 100%. Land is worth whatever people think it's worth, so the winning bid is effectively the land rent of the parcel, which equal the LVT of the parcel.
3. Because inflation is worse for the economy. If we have to make bitcoin illegal in order to stop tax evasion, we will. But LVT prevents tax evasion by making it harder, so that's not a problem. BTC will still be outlawed anyway because if it enables criminal activity.
4. This is not true. In fact, OATP proponents would argue that if people have to pay taxes on their land, then they don’t truly own all of it because the government would be owning part of their land. (And they have to, because otherwise there’s no way for most people to feasibly protect their property rights.) Since Georgism achieves equal land ownership by collecting land rents and redistributing the value to everybody else, it’s perfectly possible for first-comers and late-comers to own land equally, without all the wealth inequality that the OATP causes.
5. Welfare would only be provided in desperate, economic emergencies (e.g. WWIII, Great Depression II, etc).
And yes, I want to abolish all other forms of welfare: https://zerocontradictions...es-unsustainable. The only humane way to do it is with eugenics, so that you prevent the need for welfare in the first place.
6. We do know what the number is. It just involves a ton of very complex calculations, all of which were explained in that linked section.
7. Right, Erlich being wrong in the past proves that overpopulation won't happen in the future. That's very bad logic you got there. The implication doesn't follow.
8. No, we wouldn't actually NUKE ancaps. Nukes damage the environment too much. The reasons we don't support seccessions are in the Anti-Libertarianism FAQs.
9. Population control would be managed on a state or local level (whichever works better), not a global one because that's unnecessary. And yes, the FAQs do account for different types of lifestyles.
10. I'm more free market than all Ancaps. Ancaps don't even support free markets of any kind: https://zerocontradictions...rcular-reasoning.
Your other criticisms are addressed here: https://zerocontradictions...w-child-blessing, and here: https://zerocontradictions...adjusting-system
11. No, the government would have NOTHING to do with marriages: https://zerocontradictions...require-marriage
12. It depends on what they choose to buy in the land auctions. You're overthinking this.
13. No, dumbass. Looks like you don't understand how supply-demand curves work when there's fixed supply: https://zerocontradictions....html#conclusion
Since you claim to know so much about economics, you should be able to figure this one out for yourself.
14. No, because Georgism would take at least 30 years to transition to. You can't implement it overnight because it would disrupt everybody's personal finances, so time is necessary to transition to it. It's a complete overhaul of the economic system to make it more free market and laissez-faire, so this is not suprising.
15. We are currently experiencing ecologogical overshoot. That question was already answered here: https://zerocontradictions...here-close-bogus, and here: https://zerocontradictions...tml#overpop-when
16. Not unless you're able to outbid everybody else in the auction for Venice's land.
17. In order for the richest people to get the best floor space, they would have to pay MORE money than everybody else for it. That's how auctions work, dumbass.
18. No, Georgism is not rent-seeking. It's the prevention of rent-seeking. You should read this to gain the visual / mathematical understanding for it:  , and this too: 
19. I misspoke. We don't want top-down eugenics. We want laissez-faire (bottom-up) eugenics.
20. We already covered this, Dennis. Overpopulation is a free-rider problem: https://zerocontradictions...ee-rider-problem
When are you going to stop ignoring this? I've told you FOUR fucking times already (at least).
21. Yes you do have an equal right to land in Venice. The auction winners of the land in Venice paid top-dollar for the right to rent the land, higher than what everybody wanted to pay. That money now funds the government, and such of it funds your Citizen's Dividend.
You're probably never going to learn, but keep trying. |
posted by dennisn on July 5th, 2023 at 1:55PM
> 1. who determines what that allotment area will be?
You STILL didn't answer ;).
> Will the rich be allotted the same amount as the poor in your totalitarian state? ... "Yes"
That makes no sense. Countless large projects require machines that take up more area than the square footage that you'd allot. And what about farmland, looool. People will only be able to farm small gardens? :PPPP. Farms won't exist? Parks won't exist?
> 2. Land value is taxed at 100%
What? If my tiny apartment space is worth $100,000, what will be the "land tax" on it? A "100% tax" implies the gov gets $100k and the seller gets $100k, so the buyer would need to spend $200k.
> there are countless ways of enforcing rules, ranging from pretty passive shaming and the honor system, to draconian armed men in black. Who decides which style of enforcement is best?
What's wrong with you - why do you keep avoiding questions? (I know the answer ;)
> 3. we have to make bitcoin illegal in order to stop tax evasion, we will.
Yep, I know - you sick totalitarian fuck :D.
> BTC will still be outlawed anyway because if it enables criminal activity.
So, predictably, you will need a cbdc with total surveillance. Cash will be illegal too of course, since it enables even more criminal activity. You faggots are so predictable. And immune to reductio ad absurdum.
> it’s perfectly possible for first-comers and late-comers to own land equally
Your brain is broken. It's possible for first-comers and late-comers to own that beautiful apartment in Venice?? Or that productive gold vein? Or that romantic homestead in rural America that I first fell in love with? What a magical perfect utopia! Everyone gets to own everything equally simultaneously! Everyone gets everything equally! Not exactly compatible with auctions, but whatever, WE WANT EVERYTIHNG! FOR FREE! MAKE ALL THE BAD THINGS GO AWAY!
Incidentally, with auctions, who decides how long someone gets to own their ~10 square meters(?) of space? Like after I buy that perfect plot of land where I fell in love with my wife, can Elon Musk come along and buy it away from me the next day? The next year?
And speaking of square meters, who decides how much height we get? Eg. how high planes have to be, or what the co2 concentration of the air blowing into our windows? As a farmer, I'd want higher co2 concentrations for larger crop yields (for my TINY garden looool) ... sooo ... who decides what this concentration is allowed to be? Auction? - ie. whoever pays more gets to choose? Democracy? Or just ask your fat bureau pals? Maybe an expert "climate scientist"?
> You also seem to be clueless about how hard it is to make a profit, and to sustain a business
You predictably ignored this point. You claimed it was "UTTERLY unreasonable" to allow first comers to profit billions. Do you acknowledge that it's hard to make a billion dollars of profit, even if you're standing on literal gold? And if so, why is it UTTERLY unreasonable to allow the guy who's willing to put in all the extreme levels of work and effort to extract that resource and package it in a sellable form to accrue that profit, rather than some unrelated uninvolved person far away?
> Welfare would only be provided in desperate, economic emergencies
In The Great Depression I, the unemployment rate wasn't that high, I think around 20%. Nobody was starving. Would you have provided (stolen) welfare money to them? Food too, or just money? Nobody was given welfare in ww1 or ww2 either - nobody was starving. Sooo... we didn't need commie welfare for the past two world wars, but you'd provide it for ww3? Would you provide anyone today in the US with "welfare" (stolen money)?
> I want to abolish all other forms of welfare
Uh no, you incoherent fuck. You want to guarantee everyone housing, and presumably food, and lots of other shit. What the fuck are you talking about.
> The only humane way to do it is with eugenics
So you want eugenics via dysgenic means - by magically giving everyone everything they need without having to earn it. Great logic bro.
> 6. We do know what the number is. It just involves a ton of very complex calculations
Hahahaahaaaahahaha. You know the number, but you just can't tell me ;). Ehrlich was SURE he knew the number too! You stupid dishonest gay faggot.
> 7. Right, Erlich being wrong in the past proves that overpopulation won't happen in the future. That's very bad logic you got there. The implication doesn't follow.
Dishonest scum. See, you aren't arguing in good faith. (His name is EHRLICH you retard, you should know the names of your gay thought-leaders.) It's an example of how you fucking retards are scammers. His logic was/is EXACTLY the same as yours. He also had "very complex calculations". Why are yours better than his? :)))))). Haaaaahahahahaha.
And you have no idea how insane and ridiculous you sound, thinking that other people are too stupid to notice overpopulation, that only you're wise enough to spot it, and to handle it. You. Are. Insane. Your position is that we're all so fucking stupid to notice our kids and neighbours starving to death, to notice our farms and forests desertifying, that we need your faggot ass to inform us TO FEED OUR KIDS and tend our gardens. Haaaaahahaha. Holy shit man. Why am I wasting time here. You're literally one of those schitzo bums I bump into on the streets downtown, talking vociferously to themselves. Free charity ig.
> we don't support seccession
!!!??? So as we've been reminding you for days now, you DO support murdering us, you DO support the initiation of violence, BG was NOT joking or being satirical!!! As I suspected from the start, you (like he) do NOT support options to opt out!!!!!!
You. Nasty. Evil. Faggot.
The way you vacilated there for a second though :))). But I'm glad you're back high on your globalist monopolist totalitarian psycho horse :)))).
Dishonest scum. "boo hoo, Dennniissss... we don't want to hurt you, you can leave whenever you want" ... hahahahahahahaaaaaaa. Fuuuck.
> Or imagine that tiny remote island has some precious mineral
You predictably completely ignored this point :))))))). Dishonest fuck. Bad faith.
> What? So Big Brother will also manage marriages, and they won't be life-long, in order to share that finite resource? What?
You predictably completely ignored this point :))))). Come on man, pussy is a finite resource. It should be auctioned off too, like land, and water, and everything else! Your logic.
> 9. Population control would be managed on a state or local level (whichever works better), not a global one because that's unnecessary.
I presented a case where it might be necessary you dishonest fuck - in the case of that mineral rich island.
Moreover, you said that you wouldnt allow secession. Would you allow conquest? Or are the borders now in 2023 the final permanent ones? Israel is hell-bent on ethnically cleansing the Palestinians atm - would you just freeze things as they are now? Not one more settlement in Palestine? You wouldn't give back any of the land the jews stole from them in the past years?
Nevertheless, you do seem to be conceding that your idea is a personal and subjective one, that your "population limit" is completely arbitrary, and that we can completely avoid your insane ravings by living away from you. If only you were more coherent, I would be more reassured by this. You can keep all of north america under your totalitarian grip, and we'll live peacefully and nonviolently in Liberland. Fine. You can bitch and preach daily to your slaves about how they need to control their breeding for the greater good, and how they need to have every single one of their purchases surveiled for the greater good, and how they can only get ~10 square meters for the greater good ... while we'll be living laissez faire and eating popcorn while we watch your communism implode Yet Again. Soviet Union wasn't enough. Commie Cuba wasn't enough. North Korea isn't enough. We need Zero Contradiction's Republic now! With your faggot ass in charge, it will be guaranteed to work this time around! We totally trust you bro - you with your Arts degree, who has never produced anything in his life, who has never done anything in his life, who is loved by noone, who lives with and supports people who vehemently oppose him ;). You are definitely the man to listen to here ;). I mean, you have a fucking BLOG ffs, filled with ideas that you're definitely totally sure of! What else does one need!?
> I'm more free market than all Ancaps.
Ancaps would not restrict land acreage (that much). Ancaps would not restrict breeding at all. Ancaps would not steal from some to give to others. Ancaps support a market in arbitration. Ancaps support a market in money.
"Ancaps don't even support free markets of any kind"
You. Are. Insane. And. Dishonest.
> 11. No, the government would have NOTHING to do with marriages
Why not? They're a finite resource - I thought you were into eugenics - why let the retarded free market (which is too retarded to manage feeding and land usage) choose which genes to propagate? You. Are. Incoherent.
> you were convinced that we're on the verge of starvation and overconsumption and overbreeding, and now you're letting that ONE basically-unemployed unproductive fag have FIVE kids?!?
You ignored this. Why are you letting your friends breed five times? I thought we were overpopulated?
> 12. It depends on what they choose to buy in the land auctions. You're overthinking this.
(You're fucking up the numbering. I noticed you werent using my numbers, so I have no fucking idea what this 12 refers to.)
> 14. No [as president I wouldnt implement breeding limits immediately?], because Georgism would take at least 30 years to transition to. You can't implement it overnight because it would disrupt everybody's personal finances, so time is necessary to transition to it.
What? Breeding limits require 30 years to transition to? That's a convenient number though - just enough time for you to avoid working during your productive years, then ig you can mooch off old-age pity "please masa, I'm such an old and stupid and useless man, give me some spare change and food please masa". "Trust me bro, I got everything covered for 30 years though" You're like Enron, or Bernie Maddoff.
What exactly would "disrupt people's finances"? What the fuck are you mumbling, crazy fag? I thought your system was inherently more stable and fair?
> It's a complete overhaul of the economic system to make it more free market and laissez-faire
Clown world. I'm more and more confident that you might be legit crazy. Implementing more draconian controls and regulations is MORE LAISSEZ-FAIRE. (And taking things from people without their permission is not actually taking things from people without their permission :S) (And violently banning competing currencies is MORE LAISSEZ-FAIRE.) You. Are. Insane.
> How close to overpopulation are we now dude?? This is the CORE of your fucking position!
Your reply:
> That question was already answered here
[grudingly opens your stupid link] ... answer: "We don’t know"
So you tricked me into wasting my life going to that useless page, only to tell me you have no answer TO THIS CORE POINT of your dumbass ideology.
> "If no new technologies for enabling higher populations or changes in the allocations and consumption of resources are made"
That's a big motherfucking IF - you fucking retard. This is exactly why Ehrlich was wrong you fucking retard.
> "very difficult to predict since there are too many factors and unknown events"
This is exactly why your ideology is batshit crazy. You have NO fucking idea where we stand, or what the future entils, just like Ehrlich didn't.
> "But regardless of the exact date, it’s inevitable that overpopulation will happen eventually without population control"
Haaaahahaha. You sure? You sure no asteroid will hit first? You sure our ingenuity might not prolong this inevitability for 10k years? You. Fucking. Dumbass.
> There are plenty of signs and examples of overpopulation in various regions of the world:
> Wikipedia: Climate Change
HAAAAAAhahahahahahahaaaa. So the current climate change hoax, Greta, is a sign of overpopulation today eh? :))))))))))))))))))))))))
> China’s Upcoming Water Crisis
> Wikipedia: Water Scarcity in India
> Wikipedia: Water Scarcity in Iran
> Wikipedia: Water Scarcity in Africa
> Wikipedia: Water Scarcity in Mexico
HAaaaaahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaha. Holy fuck this is scary. First of all, I notice your admiration for commie-wikipedia, which is well known for it's retarded commie propaganda and leftist narrative pushing (like "climate change") Loooooooool. You have no idea how ridiculous you look. I hate having to cringe for other people. Second of all, "water scarcity" hahahaahahaha. Their water is more plentiful than ever before, and cleaner than ever before, but because Greta and Schwab say there's a crisis (the solution to which ALWAYS inevitably means giving them more power and money, never a decentralized cheaper more freedom-enabling local solution), well then, I guess that's all the evidence YOU need to start worrying TODAY.
I feel stupider whenever I interact with you.
> South Africa’s Catastrophic Water Problem
HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH. You have no idea what you're talking about, you dumb loser. I know why South Africa is having water problems -- and it has absolutely nothing to do with overpouplation. HAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAAH.
Dude, you're dumb. Get off your soap box, and learn more, and talk less. You're embarrassing yourself. Be humble!
> 17. In order for the richest people to get the best floor space, they would have to pay MORE money than everybody else for it. That's how auctions work, dumbass.
So Tesla can't live in Venice - even though he was immensely productive. Great system you got there, so fair. In fairness, he did make sloppy financial decisions, but the point is that YOUR system is incoherent. You're proposing crazy levels of micro-management by experts, in every aspect of life, but you're unwilling to lift a finger to help that productive genius out. You're incoherent.
> We don't want top-down eugenics. We want laissez-faire (bottom-up) eugenics.
No shit retard - I'm asking WHY? I exposed a contradiction in your casual retarded thinking - if the free market is too stupid to manage the basics (food, land, breeding), why give them that supremely important power to decide the future gene pool?? You are dumb.
> We already covered this, Dennis. Overpopulation is a free-rider problem
YOU NEVER DEFINED WHAT OVERPOPULATION MEANS. You literally provided a link just now where YOU EXPLICITLY STATED THAT YOU DON'T KNOW IF/WHEN IT'LL HAPPEN.
You are insane.
>> Looool. It LITERALLY is. You and your central bureaucrats are simply taking other people's wealth, and aren't producing anything.
> 18. No, Georgism is not rent-seeking.
HAaaahahahahaha. Dishonest fag. Okay bro, that's totally definitely not rent-seeking ;). So, according to you:
- producing nothing and taking other people's wealth is NOT rent-seeking
- tightly regulating and controlling the market IS laissez-faire
- taking people's shit without their permission is NOT theft
- ancaps who exclusively promote freemarkets are NOT pro-free-market
- you cant define overpopulation, you have no idea if/when it'll happen, but we totally need to trust you to handle this super important problem - that you have no idea about.
Fuck. You.
> When are you going to stop ignoring this [free-rider problem]?
Which problem? In general "the free rider" problem is ridiculous pathetic commie rhetoric to justify initiation of violence. Prove me wrong! I agree with you that "overpopulation" is A problem (not a free rider problem, dumbass), and I don't see us being anywhere near OVER-populated. I mean, that's just the definition of the motherfucking word: OVER- impies excessive, although the level of excess is unclear - it can mean anything from slightly more cramped living densities, to starvation. Obviously you never stated clearly what you mean, what the threshold should be for action. (Because there is no objective threshold, as I mentioned before.) You retard.
> The auction winners of the land in Venice paid top-dollar for the right to rent the land
So in your commie shithole, Twitch thots and onlyfans girls who just show their pussies to simps will get the best places in Venice, while Tesla gets to live in the dirty slums, right?
Will you allow for lotteries/gambling? Ie. let a few lucky degenerate gamblers own the best and most productive parcels of land? Thus *effectively* giving /them/ more of a right to land ("all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others") than other less lucky / less degenerate people? Gambling is pretty degenerate dysgenic behavior, you know.
And speaking of dysgenics and eugenics, why not regulate people's diets? Obviously people are too fucking stupid to know what to eat (See American waistlines), so the gov should regulate that right? And if you call it a laissez-faire diet, it will be laissez-faire ofc.
> You're probably never going to learn, but keep trying.
Projection. You fags ALWAYS project. This is boring.
|
|
|
|
posted by Ex-Ancap on July 4th, 2023 at 10:57PMlast edited July 5th, 2023 at 12:00PM
When you first messaged ZC on Tox, we thought you were just going to spout a bunch of OATP nonsense, but apparently, you just had a bunch of questions because you don't understand how the system would work. Your questions were actually pretty thoughtful, aside from the excessive emotion embedded in them.
Thanks for sending your feedback. Here are our responses:
1. Whoever's willing to pay the highest amount of land value tax. Auctions, basically.
2. Auctions determine the tax rates, but if we need to conserve natural resources, the government may raise the price of natural resources. Alternatively, the government could slightly lower natural resources to boost economic growth during a recession. It is utterly unreasonable to allow mega-corporations to profit billions of dollars just because they claimed that land first under a finders’ keepers system. That is called rent-seeking, and it doesn’t contribute to economic growth at all. If anybody is going to be making billions of dollars off of selling coal, oil, iron, copper, cobalt, natural gas, etc, it better be the government so that everybody else can pay fewer taxes (and maybe receive some welfare in return).
3. Erhlich would've won the second bet, if he took up the offer. Go look it up.
4. Yeah, because why would we chastize BG for making a joke that was obviously satirical? Hahahaha! It's so funny how you were so offended by that line <3
5. This is addressed here: https://zerocontradictions...n-FAQs.html#LMPL.
6. This is addressed here: https://zerocontradictions...ds-justify-means, and here: https://zerocontradictions...y-of-enforcement
7. You're right, that's true. That is addressed here: https://zerocontradictions...wns-land-equally
8. Yes, Georgism applies vertically too in really densely populated cities. They are determined by market rates.
9. No, because he can have any many children as he wants, as long as he meets the requirements for a reproduction license: https://zerocontradictions...overpop-solution
10. No, that's addressed here: https://zerocontradictions...here-close-bogus.
And if land were empty, then why do people still seastead?: https://zerocontradictions...html#seasteading
Think about that for a moment.
11. That's addressed here: https://zerocontradictions...wns-land-equally
Sometime, we'll probably expand our FAQs page on Georgism to explain this in more detail.
12. No, that's not what we're promoting, unless you're deliberately trying to misinterpret what we're saying. It's not stealing either: https://zerocontradictions...on-is-inevitable
13. Prove that Georgism enables rent-seeking.
14. You're not going to get population control unless there's a fixed supply of reproduction licenses. And no, we don't want top-down eugenics. That's a retarded idea: https://zerocontradictions...ez-faire-is-best.
We ONLY support laissez-faire (bottom-up) eugenics.
And no, birth rates are NOT self-regulating: https://zerocontradictions...ee-rider-problem
15. No, the proposals do NOT contribute to dysgenics. Not just anybody can have children. Only people who meet the requirements ( https://zerocontradictions...overpop-solution) can have children. That's how the system decreases dysgenics.
This is why we have to tax reproduction: https://zerocontradictions...on-tax-necessity.
Hopefully that answered all your questions. You never would've asked them in the first place if you spent more time reading the FAQs, but at least you argued in good faith. |
"I’m of them"?
You sound gayer every passing minute.
And you DONT have a life. If you did, you’d be decent. The things men can do (including fighting in wars) just because they’re too pussy to get their shit together irl is disturbing. No sympathy for you.
|
|
|
