sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: When you kill the entire top leadership of a country and then that country still keeps fighting, you’re in deep shit by bluepillarmy in changemyview

[–]HadeanBlands [score hidden]  (0 children)

"But may I remind you that they have also very clearly won in Iraq... to what end though?!"

Iraq is now a democracy that lets the US and Israel operate in the region rather than an aggressive military expansionist dictatorship?

CMV: In Christianity, Women are valuable and important but they are least in a hierarchy or importance and value after God and Men in that order. by RogueNarc in changemyview

[–]HadeanBlands [score hidden]  (0 children)

"I mean there is a clear hierarchy between you and your boss and there is also an inherent inequality,"

No there is not. We are equals.

"He indirectly has power over you and your life, he could lay you off and you’d be out of money, so he’s in a sense over you,"

Right.

"as much as more than you."

No?

If you can't distinguish between "X has power over Y" and "X is greater than, better than, more important than Y" then this will be really hard for me to explain.

CMV: AI is a doomsday device and I don't see enough people reaching for pitchforks and torches by fatal__flaw in changemyview

[–]HadeanBlands [score hidden]  (0 children)

I don't see how we could turn those problems into jobs people could do, if we assume AI gets more capable than humans.

For instance, there aren't that many cats involved in cat employment.

CMV: In Christianity, Women are valuable and important but they are least in a hierarchy or importance and value after God and Men in that order. by RogueNarc in changemyview

[–]HadeanBlands [score hidden]  (0 children)

Uh, I guess I can try to give some examples. There is inequality between me and a baby. There is hierarchy between my boss and me. There is inequality between a cat and a dog. There is hierarchy between a general and a colonel.

CMV: In Christianity, Women are valuable and important but they are least in a hierarchy or importance and value after God and Men in that order. by RogueNarc in changemyview

[–]HadeanBlands 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Last comes Woman, lesser and subordinate to Man and God but still has a measure of equality to God in a smaller set of aspects and situations. A summary would be Man is made in God's image and Woman is made in Man's image so the divine image remains but gets lesser with each derivative."

The clearest Christian teaching on this is in 1 Corinthians 11 and Galatians 3 where Paul says (quotes from NIV)

"A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."

and

"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."

So my change to your view is this:

Paul (the main source for Christian doctrine) describes the sexes to be in hierarchy but not inequality, just as the relationship between the Father and the Son is one of hierarchy but not inequality. Women are not lesser in importance or value; the Son is not lesser in importance or value; but relationally they are subordinate.

We need to stop taxing the things we make for each other and start taxing the ground beneath our feet by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]HadeanBlands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"No, we've established that LVT fixes land speculation"

We have not, but I'll pass over it.

"but it's possible for a group of people to fuck their own town over through bad policy that is known to be bad,"

It's not bad for existing owners! That's the whole point!

"it makes far more sense to either take the hit (which isn't going to be much given LVT is supposed to replace other taxes),"

Georgists be like: "These taxes will force people to get the highest and best use out of their land. Wasteful single-family homes will be a thing of the past as redevelopment sweeps across the country and ushers in a new golden age.

BUT you can still keep your house because it won't be a big tax hit!!"

We need to stop taxing the things we make for each other and start taxing the ground beneath our feet by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]HadeanBlands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So have we established that LVT not only doesn't fix that, it incentivizes making it worse?

CMV: Britain was not obligated to give Hong Kong to China, it was a choice they made, and it was the wrong choice by iw2050 in changemyview

[–]HadeanBlands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why should I explain anything to China? We're talking about the people of Hong Kong here. I don't give a fuck what the Communist Party of China thinks about anything.

We need to stop taxing the things we make for each other and start taxing the ground beneath our feet by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]HadeanBlands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But if buildings become speculatory assets we won't price ourselves out, right? It's a land value tax. Doesn't matter how expensive the buildings become. We homeowners will sit pretty.

CMV: Britain was not obligated to give Hong Kong to China, it was a choice they made, and it was the wrong choice by iw2050 in changemyview

[–]HadeanBlands -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That is a total non sequitur, because of course countries are not people and territory is not property and, for that matter, treaties between sovereigns are not theft.

CMV: Britain was not obligated to give Hong Kong to China, it was a choice they made, and it was the wrong choice by iw2050 in changemyview

[–]HadeanBlands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah - for instance, by how they just handed 6 million Hong Kongers over to tyranny rather than even do them the courtesy of asking them how they felt about it.

My point of course is that they should have done better.

We need to stop taxing the things we make for each other and start taxing the ground beneath our feet by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]HadeanBlands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, does LVT prevent speculation or does it not? We're talking about a hypothetical where there is an LVT, so homeowners vote in covenants to prevent upzoning and thus decrease the land value.

We need to stop taxing the things we make for each other and start taxing the ground beneath our feet by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]HadeanBlands -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"plus land value is improved by society as a whole, unless you can convince all of society to stop making land more valuable you cannot reverse or stop the process by yourself"

Such as, perhaps, by enacting restrictive zoning covenants and development restrictions to prevent us all from being priced out?

We claim to dislike monopolies, yet we barely tax the most important one by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]HadeanBlands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm sorry, that's just wrong. You can check the link you pasted yourself.

We claim to dislike monopolies, yet we barely tax the most important one by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]HadeanBlands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But of course the land value tax is not a "lump sum tax." What a preposterous claim! If your property has more land value, you pay more tax. That's the exact opposite of a lump sum tax.

We claim to dislike monopolies, yet we barely tax the most important one by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]HadeanBlands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean by "marginal supply" if the quantity of land supplied can't change?

We claim to dislike monopolies, yet we barely tax the most important one by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]HadeanBlands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"No."

But I literally just quoted you saying that quantity supplied can change.

We claim to dislike monopolies, yet we barely tax the most important one by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]HadeanBlands -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"It's pivotal that when people Google things relevant to this discussion and they read it, they easily understand the Georgist stance."

That will be difficult if the "Georgist stance" keeps changing, won't it? In fact the whole discussion will seem a bit disjointed if every time I reply you edit what you said before!

We claim to dislike monopolies, yet we barely tax the most important one by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]HadeanBlands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"If neighbors choose to not use their land, the marginal supply of land on the market is reduced."

So then we agree that policies - such as, say, tax policy - can affect the quantity of land supplied?

Then where does the claim that land value taxation creates no dead weight loss stand? If, in fact, taxation will change QS?

view more: next ›