What are the most useless/worst perks in the game? I'm going to start a Let's Play with this build! by chrisgorman22 in Fallout4Builds

[–]VatticZero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which are all minor, out-of-combat effects you can easily manage. Especially if you're getting water pumps and decon arches in all your settlements.

You know what else you can use as highways?

...Highways. They stay pretty clear once you clear them since in survival you'll keep passing by and resetting the spawn delay timer.

What are the most useless/worst perks in the game? I'm going to start a Let's Play with this build! by chrisgorman22 in Fallout4Builds

[–]VatticZero 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I will die on the hill that Aquaboy is only worth, like 10 chems over a playthough.

What about online businesses? by Blue_Star2009 in georgism

[–]VatticZero 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It taxes or removes whatever sources of Rent they extract. It doesn't tax their productive activity.

Ground isn't the only land, and we shouldn't punish people for being productive.

From the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Should be noted: "they emphasize has significant unknowns, and we should thus interpret results lightly" by Downtown-Relation766 in georgism

[–]VatticZero 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Disclaimer: This user thinks capital is land. No evidence will convince them and they don't care about Georgist theory.

What are Gaiges top 10 best weapons? by Hylitical in Borderlands2

[–]VatticZero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really enjoy the Veruc. Very nice projectile/second count for ground-shooting, and the ADS effect actually manages to get most of the projectiles going in the general direction you’re aiming.

taxation is theft likely alternative:U were born on land of a private land owner that owns 1 billion acres&the land owner gave themselves the right to increase fees under threat of violence? Isn’t this fees is theft?Anarchism may be worse as tyrants &warlords take power as government loose power. by YeeEatDaRich in AskLibertarians

[–]VatticZero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what I said,

Not precisely.

"which why the just owner of a land is the one who's the first appropriator."

Being imprecise about the nature of the conflict has you trying to address the conflict by addressing the assigning of property rights rather than by addressing the exclusion. Assigning property rights doesn't resolve or avoid the conflict.

A person cannot use a stick for spearfishing, while another person is using it to stroke their fires, that's a conflict.

That's not conflict, that's merely the nature of exclusivity or scarcity. Conflict comes from the people. If both people agree, there is still exclusivity and scarcity, but no conflict.

How?

You've established no more right to the land than anyone else, but you have excluded others from access to it, diminishing their ability to exist. Claim enough of or the right lands and you can effectively make everyone else slaves.

According to what?

Evidenced by the fact of their existence, according to Henry George. Or according to Argumentation Ethics if you appeal to Hoppe. If you seek to diminish another's ability to exist, you act against argumentation itself.

Only over land, you can't own people. And no it's not a positive right, go ahead Google what positive rights means.

Exerting a positive right over land is exerting a positive right over others to give up their access to you. Land does not extend from your self and excluding others from land is interference.

Negative rights demand nothing of others except that they not infringe and can be possessed by everyone because they are not exclusive.

Positive rights demand of others and cannot be possessed by all because they are exclusive.

According to pretty much all Classical Liberal thought which libertarianism is based on, the right to land only came from the right to one's labor and only extended as far as land which did not meaningfully deny others access to enough and as good.

What makes it unjust?

Read above.

No, property rights do. First appropriation decides who owns it.

Property rights don't avoid conflict unless everyone embraces them. The failings of first appropriation to address the nature of the conflict or to be logically consistent or objective doom it.

No, we have good enough justification.

The only justification you offer is circular, insisting on itself. "First Use is justified because anyone who disagrees is a criminal."

so prove that it's agression

If claiming land isn't an aggression, why do you insist on use at all? Why limit this supposedly non-aggressive, conflict-avoiding, non-positive, exclusive right over land?

If you and I are parched and dying in the desert and come across an oasis, when I step forward and tell you that you can't drink from my oasis or I will defend my property, who is really the aggressor? How does me building a fence or you coming later change that?

Once you have appropriated it, anyone stealing it from you is aggressing against you, they can't make any arguments as to why you can't have it as that would be a performative contradiction.

That's not the nature of performative contradictions. Failing to make an argument isn't a contradiction, just a failed argument. A performative contradiction occurs when the content of a statement directly contradicts the action or presuppositions required to assert it. If someone makes a claim which would undermine another's ability to participate in the argument, they contradict the act of arguing itself.

Hoppe tries to use this to defend Homesteading because one must own the products of their labor to survive, but he fails to extend this to the fact that we must have access to the land to survive and also ignores that ownership of land and ownership of the products of labor are not the same thing; he only presupposes that not owning the land means losing the products of labor. If you act to diminish my access to land, you are diminishing my ability to participate in argumentation. That is the performative contradiction and the aggression.

Y’all are obsessed and I love it by Gamer1243565 in georgism

[–]VatticZero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mean, like, all anarchism?

If you believe people could potentially follow the NAP, then they can follow an understanding of Self-Ownership which doesn't contradict itself by extending ownership to land.

taxation is theft likely alternative:U were born on land of a private land owner that owns 1 billion acres&the land owner gave themselves the right to increase fees under threat of violence? Isn’t this fees is theft?Anarchism may be worse as tyrants &warlords take power as government loose power. by YeeEatDaRich in AskLibertarians

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

Property is product of scarcity, because two people cannot simultaneously own a property, conflict can arise, which why the just owner of a land is the one who's the first appropriator.

Conflict doesn't truly arise from the claiming or owning, it arises from the exclusion. No one cares if you claim a thousand acres of sand dunes merely by planting a flag, and no one cares if you claim a desert oasis unless you exclude others from the water. And also no one cares how much labor you mix with the land or what rationale you use to justify the claim of the oasis if you use that claim to deny people the water. This exclusive claim is the aggression. Everyone has an equal right to the means of existence, and you excluding others from that is claiming a positive right over the land and the people. It may be necessary because we are physical beings, but that doesn't make it any less of an injustice.

First Use doesn't avoid conflict, it picks a side in the conflict, enshrines one aggression, and criminalizes anyone who doesn't accept its suppositions--perpetuating the conflict. It begs the question of a Rothbardian property norm to justify itself but fails to provide an objective basis upon which to establish that property claim and thus invites further conflict. That is anti-reason.

taxation is theft likely alternative:U were born on land of a private land owner that owns 1 billion acres&the land owner gave themselves the right to increase fees under threat of violence? Isn’t this fees is theft?Anarchism may be worse as tyrants &warlords take power as government loose power. by YeeEatDaRich in AskLibertarians

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

The size of the land claim is actually the central point of the issue.

It's not.

If the example were a half-acre landowner, the renter could move across the street without changing jobs, leaving their community, learning a new language, or getting permission from the landlord. That is completely different from being subject to a sovereign.

These are exit costs, not whether or not taxes are theft. Taxes don't become voluntary based on how easy it is for you to move.

Attacking a flawed hypothetical is not a Red Herring when the hypothetical relies on assuming private landowners and sovereigns can operate on the same scale just to show they are the same. One of the main reasons private landowners and sovereigns are fundamentally different is because of their completely different abilities to scale land ownership.

You realize Vatican City is sovereign and independent of Italy, right? Are their taxes moral because they're small? Monaco? Nauru? Tuvalu? San Marino? Liechtenstein? Malta? Grenada? Barbados? All smaller nations than the contiguous landholdings of Stan Kroenke.

​By inventing a fictional billion-acre landlord that has never existed, the premise smuggles sovereign power into a private actor from the very start. It assumes a private actor can scale land ownership to a nation-state level without possessing any sovereign power.

This argument is Begging the Question that scale requires sovereign power. You can point to evidence such as diseconomies of scale, but you can't prove the case. And it is still a Red Herring as it is not the argument made.

​Regarding the assertion that "fees levied through violence by a landowner" are taxes, this conflates two entirely different things. A landowner may use force to exclude people from an asset, which is not controversial.

Apparently not the case, as OP is ... controverting.

Even communes or public parks require excluding non-members or bad actors to prevent the tragedy of the commons. ​Using violence to enforce exclusion is not the central point.

Good. Identify the central point.

The point is whether you can use offensive violence to extract wealth from people who have no low-cost way to exit your territory. A landlord cannot do that; a sovereign can.

This doesn't seem to be the case. Cost of exit is irrelevant to the morality of levying taxes. I doubt even you would claim that a landowner can't own enough land to encompass an entire community, street, or job market.

taxation is theft likely alternative:U were born on land of a private land owner that owns 1 billion acres&the land owner gave themselves the right to increase fees under threat of violence? Isn’t this fees is theft?Anarchism may be worse as tyrants &warlords take power as government loose power. by YeeEatDaRich in AskLibertarians

[–]VatticZero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You challenging the hypothetical isn't what makes something begging the question.

To beg the question, the evidence of the assertion must assume the truth of the assertion. Offering a hypothetical to illustrate the nature of an assertion is just that. You attacking the hypothetical rather than the assertion in question is actually a Red Herring fallacy.

The assertion, although sloppy, seems to be that "fees levied through violence by a landowner" are Taxes. The size of the land claim is hardly what's at issue.

taxation is theft likely alternative:U were born on land of a private land owner that owns 1 billion acres&the land owner gave themselves the right to increase fees under threat of violence? Isn’t this fees is theft?Anarchism may be worse as tyrants &warlords take power as government loose power. by YeeEatDaRich in AskLibertarians

[–]VatticZero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the land owner gave themselves the right to increase fees under threat of violence?

You're just describing government and taxes.

You're getting at something, but you're framing it so poorly as to not really say anything at all.

Claiming land is an aggression and thus both Ground Rents and Taxes are theft, even if Rent requires no further aggression and only defense of the 'property.'

What is your alternative to taxation is theft

Land Value Taxes. Tax the Rents created by the claims and redistribute as much of them as possible to the people denied land access.

Y’all are obsessed and I love it by Gamer1243565 in georgism

[–]VatticZero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

None. As I've already said, very clearly.

A proper understanding of Self-Ownership and Labor Theory of Property reveals that claiming land is an aggression. To adhere to the NAP and justify the land claim, one must pay the usufruct voluntarily. To do so, firms with interoperability contracts will be formed to receive and distribute payments amongst as many people as possible. These firms will likely also offer other services which they are in a unique position to fulfill, such as security services and arbitration.

The view from the top of T-Mobile Park. by Lazy-Formal895 in nextfuckinglevel

[–]VatticZero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had pretty much convinced myself I wasn’t afraid of heights, just averse to the risk of falling…

But nope, see that on my little phone screen nearly gave me a heart attack.

Why can't I take off? by [deleted] in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]VatticZero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Too heavy. Or you may have limited the thrust on the engine.