2 ms·
It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no da
by nickff 10y ago
It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad.
- fweespeech 10y ago> It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad. You advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else which could be simplified and applied consistently by a tax. The fact you don't understand that is, effectively, a very inefficient tax is confusing.
- nickff 10y agoI didn't "advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else". I said that one might be subject to a tort or trespass lawsuit "if [one] reduce[s] the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years..."