mf - story #7350 - > So Bill Gates can

posted by sleepy-sniper on July 10th, 2023 at 6:35PM

> 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

Link | Parent

posted by dennisn on July 10th, 2023 at 6:43PM

> that would be pollution

No, it can be done with minimal pollution.

> environmental destruction

Subjective. Obviously he sees the move as enhancing his environment.

> If Bill Gates did that, he would be broke poor for the rest of his life.

Retarded reasoning. There are a zillion ways he can profit from this move. You lack intelligence / creativity. Back to the drawing board kid!

> Nobody could ever have enough money to buy the Amazon rainforest.

How much does it cost? (Rhetorical question, dumbass ;)

> We support public possession of land

Nonensical/dishonest commie rhetoric. There's no such thing as "the public". It's really stupid and shallow commie propaganda. There are only individuals. My kind of individuals would implement very very different rules on their lands than your faggot group of individuals. In both cases, a tiny group of individuals define the rules. Again, back to the drawing board retard. Think before you type!

> I am against all forms of government corruption

YOU LITERALLY JUST SAID YOU DONT GIVE A SHIT THAT BLITHERING AND MY BRO AND ALHAZRED MAKE THEIR MONEY VIA EVIL/CORRUPTION!!?? YOU DISHONEST CLOWN!

> The meaning is quite clear

It was not clear at all you dishonest fuck. You simply said "maximizing efficiency" - you never bothered to define what exactly you're maximizing. And just a second ago you invoked the super arbitrary and subjective and vague notion of "environmental destruction." You are a real mess dude!

Link

posted by sleepy-sniper on July 10th, 2023 at 7:23PM

> No, it can be done with minimal pollution.

You're missing the point. The bottom line is that if he or anyone damages the environment, there is a very harsh fine to pay, even debtor's prisons if needed.

> There are a zillion ways he can profit from this move.

Not if the pollution tax is high enough.

> How much does it cost?

It's not for sale, tranny.

> There's no such thing as "the public".

HAHAHAHA! I had a good laugh out of that one.

> government corruption

It's good for the corrupt people who profit, and bad overall for society. No contradictions here. You know that which side I'm on depends on the context and which governments we're talking about.

> It was not clear at all

Yes it is. You just don't know how to read. The webpages define it very clearly.

Link

posted by dennisn on July 10th, 2023 at 8:31PM

> You're missing the point.

Projection. In fact YOU are missing the point. The definition of "environmental damage" and "pollution" is fucking arbitrary. Like, with co2 concentrations, some people want more, some people want less. For some it's damage, for others (eg. farmers) it's a benefit. Same with gLobAl wArmInG/cOoLinG.

> Not if the pollution tax is high enough.

Right, so as I assumed all along, people aren't free to own land, or do much of anything, without your faggot central bureau approving everything, you micromanaging sick commies :P. If you don't like Bill Gates, even though he has many customers lined up, you'll just "tax" him. Sick faggot.

>> There's no such thing as "the public".
> HAHAHAHA! I had a good laugh out of that one.

Same.

> It's good for the corrupt people who profit, and bad overall for society

You're so fucking stupid and confused. "Society", like "the public" doesn't exist - they're abstractions. Maybe you can define "society" as what the majority of *individuals* want, but why do that? I thought you were a eugenicist, not a populist? Either way, it's a retarded commie concept, dumbass. Think before you talk, before you parrot gay commie propaganda.

> You know that which side I'm on depends on the context and which governments we're talking about.

You were on the side of a government that is diametrically opposed to all those positions you listed - you were perfectly fine with supporting them as long as you got a cut of the loot. You said "who gives a shit" about that :D. Incoherent fag.

>> It was not clear at all
> Yes it is
You dishonest fuck, all you said was "maximizing efficiency". THAT IS NOT CLEAR. And you STILL never bothered to define what you meant by that. What the fuck exactly did you mean to maximize? Wealth?? Longevity? Freedom? Justice? I asked you to clarify a few times, you did not! What you said WAS/IS STILL unclear!

Link

posted by sleepy-sniper on July 10th, 2023 at 9:20PM

> The definition of "environmental damage" and "pollution" is arbitrary.

You literally just asked me if it's okay for billionaires to deforest the Amazon. Ancaps don't have a reliable solution for preventing that from happening.

If anything, the Georgist solution is better because the taxation is done in proportion to how much pollution there is, and that requires measuring the pollution. Ancaps don't favor measuring pollution. They believe in might makes right when it comes to pollution.

> If you don't like Bill Gates, even though he has many customers lined up, you'll just "tax" him.

Land values, land rents, and land value taxes would all be private knowledge. It's part of a free market that tells people how much land costs.

> "Society", like "the public" doesn't exist - they're abstractions.

You say that, and then you turn around and acknowledge the existence of the Canadian government and how it opposes you.

> I thought you were a eugenicist, not a populist?

Both, but I'm better described as a pragmatist.

> You said "who gives a shit" about that.

I said that in the context of a single man having to earn a living for his starving family.

> What the fuck exactly did you mean to maximize?

The persistence of Modern Civilization and Wealth.

Link

> Ancaps don't have a reliable by dennisn on July 10th, 2023 at 9:36PM.