|
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.
|
posted by dennisn on July 10th, 2023 at 9:21PM
> Prove [there's no such thing as the public] without using moral dogma
LEARN TO READ. I said it's an abstraction. "The public" has no will or no values apart from those of it's individuals. It's not a thing, it's a collection of competing individual interests. I even tried to help you out, tried to steelman you, by suggesting that what you meant was "the majority of individuals." READ BETTER!
> No, not at all. That would defeat the purpose and goal of taxing land value.
Well I was arguing with another commie georgist who said that everyone should be alotted a calculated amount of land. That does sound a lot more in line with your purported values - how are you going to stop "over consumption" (as you subjectively arbitrarily define it)? (Rhetorical question, I basically know how.) The differences between all you commies are blurry and negligible - in every case you sicko tyrants want to impose your particular insecurities and wills on everyone else.
> That would defeat the purpose and goal of taxing land value.
No it wouldn't. Your stated goal is resource management. You don't even know your own goals and values.
> Same with Ancap political "defense" corporations."
Dishonest fag. I literally gave you the difference, we have competing options, and options to opt out. Your gay Georgism doesn't seem to have any of that! You explicitly say you would not allow secession or competition!
|
> It's an abstraction.
And it's a very useful abstraction with predictive and explanatory power.
> I was arguing with another commie georgist who said that everyone should be alotted a calculated amount of land.
Well fuck that guy. He ain't no Georgist. He's just a poser.
> How are you going to stop "over consumption"?
By taxing natural resources.
> The differences between all you commies are blurry and negligible.
I could say the same about Ancaps and Dictators.
> Your stated goal is resource management. You don't even know your own goals and values.
Land value taxation accomplishes both of those goals. I do know what my goals and values are.
> we have competing options, and options to opt out
Nope, this is just more dishonesty for promoting your retarded political agenda.
You can't guarantee that your political corporations will provide opt-out options.
In fact, corporations wouldn't even exist without the free market to establish them.
> You explicitly say you would not allow secession.
We do allow secession. Secession from Russia, China, North Korea are all good in my book!
> or competition.
If you don't like living under the Canadian NAP, then move to America and live under the American NAP.
We do allow competition. And lots of it.
|
|
|
|
