mf - story #7354 - > No, it can be done

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 | Parent

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

posted by dennisn on July 10th, 2023 at 9:36PM

> Ancaps don't have a reliable solution

The argument is that humans generally seek to do good, for numerous reasons (mirror neurons, logic, tit-for-tat, etc). But your insecure ass wants MORE ASSURANCE, like a faggot baby, so you retardedly propose a super powerful central unaccountable monopoly organization to pinky-promise to solve all your major problems, and conveniently retardedly ignore the zillions of stories about this in collected human history - power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, yada yada

There are over a million creative ways that ancaps can handle a deforestation problem like that, that don't involve enslaving the entire human species under a single all-powerful ruling elite, who pinky promised never to abuse their power. Clown. World.

> the taxation is done in proportion to how much pollution there is

LEARN. TO. READ. YOU STUPID FUCK. The idea of "pollution" is arbitrary/subjective! I mentioned the co2 example. The same can be said for air temperature, or tree coverage!

> a free market that tells people how much land costs.

BUT THERE IS NO MARKET IN THE AMAZON RAIN FOREST - SO BILL GATES CAN PROBABLY EASILY BUY IT ALL FOR UNDER A BILLION! The "liquidity" in that market is almost zero! (Mostly due to evil gov laws stifling any such market or respect for land rights.) As if the status quo wasn't bad enough, your dumbass proposal would allow (encourage actually) the whole forest to be bought, because, as you said, there's no limit, if you have the $$ you can have as much land as you want! GREAT management of finite resources there, fag!

> Ancaps don't favor measuring pollution.

Oh you and your gay strawmen. I favor measuring pollution, ergo you're WRONG, stupid fuck!

> They believe in might makes right when it comes to pollution.

Another gay strawman. We believe in CONTRACTS, you gay fuck. That's roughly the opposite of "might makes right". Fuck you. Go back to your masturbation sessions, alone in your dark corner. You aren't here to debate or learn. You really really love those straw men!

>> "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

Learn english, turd. "society" != "the canadian gov". The canadian gov is a small group of sick psychopaths, a lot like you. And even they don't "oppose me". I can easily take them out. They hire bigger men with guns to do the actual dirty work. But hey, don't let me interrupt your circle jerk with your straw.

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

Nice evasoin there, faggot. Also, it wasn't about a single man. You were pressuring ME to ALSO similarly abandon my concerns about justice and fairness, to abandon my principles. Because that's what you are doing / want to do too. Loooool. So pathetic.

> The persistence of Modern Civilization and Wealth.

HAHAHAAHAHAH. TOO. CRINGE.

Okay fag, that clarifies everything. Thanks for the clarification. So you agreed that you are indeed trying to maximize wealth, amorally (you didnt mention anything about justice or morality, so that's the implication). And then you throw in YET ANOTHER UNCLEAR WORD ... "persistence". Well, one way to maximize "persistence of modern civilization" is to enslave everyone in bubble wrapped rooms, with computers and AI, right?

Link