|
posted by dennisn on July 10th, 2023 at 6:16PM
You're such an incoherent mess. I thought the whole fucking point of gEorGIsM was that land is a finite resource, and it's too risky to simply leave it's allocation to the market, so we need a benevolent dictator to determine which land is sellable. And, because we're such insecure commie bitches, we need this Benevolent Big Brother to ensure that everyone gets at least one small parcel, the size of which Big Bro will define.
But now you're saying that there is no limit to how much land anyone can own? Their wealth determines that? So Bill Gates can own most of North America, as I heard he's trying to do (buying farmland)?
|
posted by sleepy-sniper on July 10th, 2023 at 6:24PMlast edited July 10th, 2023 at 6:26PM
> I thought the whole point of Georgism was that land is a finite resource
Yes, exactly. That's why land should be taxed. Anybody can have as much land as they pay LVT for. Doesn't matter who possesses it or how much they possess as long as they pay the LVT. There's no need to over-complicate this.
> But you're saying that there is no limit to how much land anyone can own?
Nobody can *own* land. People can only *possess* land.
> So Bill Gates can own most of North America, as I heard he's trying to do (buying farmland)?"
If the land value is being taxed and he's paying for it, then where's the problem here?
If the land is being taxed to its maximum value, then it's also being used to its maximum efficiency. As determined by The Free Market.
And of course, the same rule applies to reproduction licenses. You can have as many children as you can pay for. Eventually there'd be a maximum quota after several generations in ideal circumstances.
|
posted by dennisn on July 10th, 2023 at 6:30PM
> Doesn't matter who possesses it or how much they possess
Are you retarded? So Bill Gates can deforest the entire Amazon Rainforest? He can probably afford it, given all the money he leeched from his corrupt government dealings.
> Nobody can *own* land. People can only *possess* land.
You're either dumb or dishonest. It's hard to tell now. In communism/georgism, the "central committee", the "inner circle" owns the land. SOMEONE obviously owns it, and defines the rules for it! Dude, you haven't thought through anything!?
> then it's also being used to its maximum efficiency
That's an undefined term in this context. It matters how the money was gotten - and the fact that you have no qualms that it was gotten by corruption ("Who gives a shit" -- Zero) is disturbing and will predictably lead to bad outcomes ... but sure, over many generations, the inefficiencies of evil (a subtle but important point that you probably don't even support) will sort themselves out - the righteous will outcompete the evil scum.
|
> So Bill Gates can deforest the entire Amazon Rainforest?
No. Because that would be pollution and environmental destruction. And Georgists also support pollution taxes. If Bill Gates did that, he would be broke poor for the rest of his life.
Nobody could ever have enough money to buy the Amazon rainforest. In fact, Georgists wouldn't even allow Amazonian land to be up for sale. We support public possession of land when it protects the environment.
> Haven't you thought through anything?
Yes, I have. Private possession prevents Tragedies of the Commons. Public ownership of land improves economic growth and environmental protection.
> and the fact that you have no qualms that it was gotten by corruption
I am against all forms of government corruption, unless it's corruption that weakens Russia, China, North Korea, etc.
> That's an undefined term in this context.
No, it isn't. The meaning is quite clear: https://zerocontradictions...vator-pitch.html
|
|
|
|
