|
posted by dennisn on July 10th, 2023 at 6:46PM
> Everybody has access to the land and resources because it's publicly owned
Wrong retard. I don't have access to walk into your bedroom, even though it's "publically owned". And even for less used Georgian land, say under a beautiful waterfall, I don't have access to it if someone else is using it. You are so fucking retarded and childish ... "please mommy, I want everything always for free, please mommy, no mo fighting and conflict, just give me free housing, free food, clean air, etc mommy" (you support Big Brother providing free housing/food/clean air right?
> revenues are distributed back to the citizens
The commies said this too, faggot. "Trust us bro, give us your money, and we'll divy it out responsibly, just trust us man! Come on man!"
|
> I don't have access to walk into your bedroom, even though it's "publically owned"
Exactly. That's because I have private possession of it.
> you support Big Brother providing free housing/food/clean air right?
No. I never said that. That's a retarded idea.
> The commies said this too
So did the Ancaps.
|
posted by dennisn on July 10th, 2023 at 8:20PM
> That's because I have private possession of it
So, to spoon feed you, the idea of "private possession" and "public access" are logically contradictory. Ie. there's no such thing as "public access" - because there's no such thing as "the public", as I said.
>> you support Big Brother providing free housing/food/clean air right?
> No.
But you do support Big Brother providing free land, some minimum amount?
>> The commies said this too
> So did the Ancaps
Cringe and bad-faith "arguing". Ancaps don't take your money against your will, and we have recourse to pre-agreed upon third-party arbitrators. Your King George and his gay cronies have nobody to keep them in check - they are the judge jury and executioner. They alone define what the laws are.
|
> because there's no such thing as "the public"
Prove it without using moral dogma.
> Do you support Big Brother providing free land, some minimum amount?
No, not at all. That would defeat the purpose and goal of taxing land value.
> George and his gay cronies have nobody to keep them in check
Same with Ancap political "defense" corporations.
|
|
|
|