4 ms·

Most current wealth is not in the form of natural resources.. Buildings, machinery, intellectual property (including trademarks) are not natural resources. We c

by aminok 10y ago

Most current wealth is not in the form of natural resources.. Buildings, machinery, intellectual property (including trademarks) are not natural resources. We could charge every appropriator of natural resources a fee commensurate with the value that they are appropriating, and there would still be vast amounts of private property in the world, and that socialists would still think they have a right to forcibly redistribute. >And your first paragraph is pretty much "all taxes are theft", that is usually the mantra of fanatical libertarians. One person's "fanatical libertarian" is another person's human rights advocate. >The economic illiteracy required to come up with your conclusions is astounding. Worthless ad hominem.

antisthenes 10y ago
> Most current wealth is not in the form of natural resources.. Buildings, machinery, intellectual property (including trademarks) are not natural resources. Incorrect. Buildings stand on land (natural resources) and require significant amounts of energy to be erected (natural resource). So does machinery. IP is the only thing you have going for here. How useful is IP without infrastructure and capital to support it? Is it useful, for example, to know how to make a solar panel if you have no means of producing it or extracting the metals and materials needed to make it, because that area is controlled by someone else? > One person's "fanatical libertarian" is another person's human rights advocate. No. Fanatical libertarians are a fringe group, as is evidenced by elections and the amount of ridicule they rightly garner in any factual discussion. There's no human right to "not be taxes while enjoying the benefits of infrastructure". Perhaps some libertarians' positions are more nuanced, but you wouldn't know it from their comments. > Worthless ad hominem. Worthless libertarian drivel. Calling someone illiterate or incompetent in a subject is not an ad hominem when it is based in fact. It's clearly not your area of expertise, so it's not shameful to admit so.
- aminok 10y ago
  >Incorrect. Buildings stand on land (natural resources) and require significant amounts of energy to be erected (natural resource). So does machinery. Everything is made from natural resources. That goes without saying. The question is what portion of the value of the property is constituted by the value of the natural resources. The value of the natural resource inputs to production form a minor fraction of the total value of what is produced. This is because the effort it takes to configure and organize those natural resources into something with added value is what holds the majority of the value. This is why economic systems make such a big difference in the success of economies. Good laws incentivize and reward effective efforts. >No. Fanatical libertarians are a fringe group, as is evidenced by elections and the amount of ridicule they rightly garner in any factual discussion. Ok let's play this game: Libertarians are the ultimate human rights advocates. The majority believes in a lot of silly stuff, like using violence against non-violent people. The majority believing something doesn't make it right. Your inane insults are typical of anti-libertarian extremists who can't tolerate someone advocating that other people be left alone and not violently forced to conform to a plan imposed by others. >Worthless libertarian drivel. Everything you've written has been worthless and intolerant authoritarian drivel. It's the product of an infantile and narcissistic mind, that psychologically projects their own characteristics onto others in the form of insults.

by aminok 10y ago

antisthenes 10y ago

> Most current wealth is not in the form of natural resources.. Buildings, machinery, intellectual property (including trademarks) are not natural resources. Incorrect. Buildings stand on land (natural resources) and require significant amounts of energy to be erected (natural resource). So does machinery. IP is the only thing you have going for here. How useful is IP without infrastructure and capital to support it? Is it useful, for example, to know how to make a solar panel if you have no means of producing it or extracting the metals and materials needed to make it, because that area is controlled by someone else? > One person's "fanatical libertarian" is another person's human rights advocate. No. Fanatical libertarians are a fringe group, as is evidenced by elections and the amount of ridicule they rightly garner in any factual discussion. There's no human right to "not be taxes while enjoying the benefits of infrastructure". Perhaps some libertarians' positions are more nuanced, but you wouldn't know it from their comments. > Worthless ad hominem. Worthless libertarian drivel. Calling someone illiterate or incompetent in a subject is not an ad hominem when it is based in fact. It's clearly not your area of expertise, so it's not shameful to admit so.

aminok 10y ago
>Incorrect. Buildings stand on land (natural resources) and require significant amounts of energy to be erected (natural resource). So does machinery. Everything is made from natural resources. That goes without saying. The question is what portion of the value of the property is constituted by the value of the natural resources. The value of the natural resource inputs to production form a minor fraction of the total value of what is produced. This is because the effort it takes to configure and organize those natural resources into something with added value is what holds the majority of the value. This is why economic systems make such a big difference in the success of economies. Good laws incentivize and reward effective efforts. >No. Fanatical libertarians are a fringe group, as is evidenced by elections and the amount of ridicule they rightly garner in any factual discussion. Ok let's play this game: Libertarians are the ultimate human rights advocates. The majority believes in a lot of silly stuff, like using violence against non-violent people. The majority believing something doesn't make it right. Your inane insults are typical of anti-libertarian extremists who can't tolerate someone advocating that other people be left alone and not violently forced to conform to a plan imposed by others. >Worthless libertarian drivel. Everything you've written has been worthless and intolerant authoritarian drivel. It's the product of an infantile and narcissistic mind, that psychologically projects their own characteristics onto others in the form of insults.