5 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 d
by 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..."