|
>> Okay, okay, perhaps I need a pseudonym change from An-ather bloody Libertarian
>> to another friggin' contrarian. >> There is no need for such a treaty. If the details did not work out to AbL's
>> liking, wouldn't he be miffed. Perhaps the unenforcability in the HCA decision
>> is why it is so good - such a bad decision can't affect the internet. I must confess, I take a perverse pleasure in watching governments impotently
try to control people in ways which are simply unable to do. Like a bag lady
on a street corner screaming orders at people who just ignore her. Of course I would prefer if they were responsible but watching them thrash
about like a shark in a puddle is a consolation prize. >> But do you entirely want to remove libel/slander? Rational people won't beleive
>> outrageous or unproven stories, but they can still do damage, and there should
>> be a dterrent/punishment/recompoence. Yes, credible outlets will prevail but
>> innocent people still get hurt, or remain uncompensated or have a blackened
>> name. A court decision holds much weight in society. The whackos and lazy
>> journos get pushed aside, but without libel/slander, someone still gets hurt,
>> and I beleive this is a market failure. So let everyone's name be blackened. Give me a copy of the electoral role, and
I will write an accusation generation program - everything from pedophilia,
fraud, rape and bestiality. No-one will believe anything unless they know the
person who makes the accusation (or trusts someone who says they know the
accuser etc). People will go back to trusting those they know, and not trusting
organizations (government, mass media etc). Maybe they will go back to also
trusting what they know instead of the decisions of 'experts'. >> Yep, soliciting isn't easily taxed. That's why a GST or land tax would get the
>> revenue ( and lower the rate presumably). The money spent by the girl gets
>> taxed, and the money saved by the man gets taxed in a land tax (making a few
>> presumptions). A GST is supposed to get 10% of the the money paid to the girl AND 10% of the
money then spend by the girl (as well as income tax in the middle). The cash
transaction bypasses GST and income tax. >> Well, land may not be a fixed resource in the old classical sense, but there
>> isn't a better example to my mind. What could be, that is currently
>> utilised? I have been thinking about land taxes after reading some Ayn Rand. I have added
to the wealth entry in the
manifesto. I think there is much more justification in taxing land, not on the
market value of the land (which is mostly based on how close it is to a center
of production), but on natural assets (a view, being near the sea or a river). >> Yes I do think that consumption is equivalent to tradeable utility, in the
>> sense that holding something that can be consumed means that it is being
>> withheld from someone who wants to consume it. >> Say, the land has nothing done to it, but people want to build houses on it. >> But then again, witholding it is a form of consumption. :-) Yes the nasty capitalists hoarding food just to keep it from the starving
masses for some unnamed (but by implication, evil) purpose .. :-) >> Owning the land uses up land non the less. And people who find that land too expensive can set up their own cities
elsewhere. Frankly it annoys me that city centralization is so heavily
subsidized (subsidized transport to take people to the center of the Sydney etc),
but Carr is screaming that the city infrastructure is about to collapse. Yes, Bob - collapsing would be the best thing for it - more people would move
away from the city and enjoy a higher standard of living instead of paying
$1,000,000 for an inner-city chicken-coop so they can work in the center of Sydney. .. but maybe that's a subject for another time.
| 
