3 ms·

>> Can you show me a single successful enterprise that does not require any land? > Businesses often rent office space. Microsoft got its start from a rented b

by lovich 4y ago

>> Can you show me a single successful enterprise that does not require any land? > Businesses often rent office space. Microsoft got its start from a rented building. As I mentioned before, Japan became a world economic power with very little land. South Korea is another example. South America has plenty of land, and is mired in poverty. Just to be clear, I am taking that as no, you cannot show a single successful enterprise that does not require land. Redefining renting land as not requiring land does not pass any sort of logical muster. As for the rest of your comments, I'm not going to engage with your Gish Gallop when you cant even pretend to deal with the very first point. It's obvious you have an opinion and you are going to work your way backwards to any argument that supports your conclusion Edit: Oh god, I was just going through other comments I had this week and realized you are the guy who was arguing that seatbelts are dangerous and shouldn't be required. I legitimately think you might be having a schizophrenic breakdown and you should seek therapy.

WalterBright 4y ago
> you cannot show a single successful enterprise that does not require land You're engaging in reductio ad absurdum, because the space every person occupies is required for them to exist. Your argument is simply silly. A land-based business would be one that farms or mines or puts a racetrack on the land. Two businesses can be contained in offices right next to each other, and one goes bust and the other gets rich. The office is irrelevant. > you are the guy who was arguing that seatbelts are dangerous and shouldn't be required. That's a gross misrepresentation of what I argued. You got that one so wrong, perhaps you should try carefully reading my posts again in this thread. > I legitimately think you might be having a schizophrenic breakdown and you should seek therapy. Insulting others is not a convincing argument.
- lovich 4y ago
  You declared that land wasn’t a part of wealth creation, and then pointed toward Japan as an example of wealth creation with a low amount of land and a lot of wealth and South America as an example of a lot of land and no wealth creation. All of this to support your claim that land != wealth creation It is not a reductio ab absurdum argument to ask you to give proof to a statement that you declared. I have already been warned about engaging in flame war arguments, so I will not respond to your other points unless you can provide evidence for what I consider your very incendiary claims that the land taken from other peoples was not in involved in wealth creation. At best, we simply do not agree on basic interpretations of reality if you are pro free markets and capitalism but also don’t think plundered land had anything to do with wealth creation
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > I have already been warned about engaging in flame war arguments Instead, posted insults. But it's fine if you want to start taking the high road. I'll forgive you :-) > your very incendiary claims that the land taken from other peoples was not in involved in wealth creation. First off, if you read the known history of the indigenous peoples of America, they were constantly engaged in taking land from each other. (For example, read "The Commanche Empire" by Pekka Hamalainen.) Secondly, they lived at a subsistence level. This is not much in the way of wealth creation. The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas did go much further, and did create wealth from the land, but far less effectively than the Europeans did. They were also in Central and South America, not North America. > also don’t think plundered land had anything to do with wealth creation This is not what I wrote. I wrote that land is not required for wealth creation. It is not the common factor among wealthy economies. And whether it was plundered or not is irrelevant. (All land has been taken at some point in time.) > It is not a reductio ab absurdum argument to ask you to give proof to a statement that you declared. That's a misrepresentation of what I wrote about an office requiring land. Also, it is impossible to prove anything about economics. But what we can do is examine history. When we do, the common theme for highly wealth creating economies is free markets. Not land.

by lovich 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago

> you cannot show a single successful enterprise that does not require land You're engaging in reductio ad absurdum, because the space every person occupies is required for them to exist. Your argument is simply silly. A land-based business would be one that farms or mines or puts a racetrack on the land. Two businesses can be contained in offices right next to each other, and one goes bust and the other gets rich. The office is irrelevant. > you are the guy who was arguing that seatbelts are dangerous and shouldn't be required. That's a gross misrepresentation of what I argued. You got that one so wrong, perhaps you should try carefully reading my posts again in this thread. > I legitimately think you might be having a schizophrenic breakdown and you should seek therapy. Insulting others is not a convincing argument.

lovich 4y ago
You declared that land wasn’t a part of wealth creation, and then pointed toward Japan as an example of wealth creation with a low amount of land and a lot of wealth and South America as an example of a lot of land and no wealth creation. All of this to support your claim that land != wealth creation It is not a reductio ab absurdum argument to ask you to give proof to a statement that you declared. I have already been warned about engaging in flame war arguments, so I will not respond to your other points unless you can provide evidence for what I consider your very incendiary claims that the land taken from other peoples was not in involved in wealth creation. At best, we simply do not agree on basic interpretations of reality if you are pro free markets and capitalism but also don’t think plundered land had anything to do with wealth creation
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > I have already been warned about engaging in flame war arguments Instead, posted insults. But it's fine if you want to start taking the high road. I'll forgive you :-) > your very incendiary claims that the land taken from other peoples was not in involved in wealth creation. First off, if you read the known history of the indigenous peoples of America, they were constantly engaged in taking land from each other. (For example, read "The Commanche Empire" by Pekka Hamalainen.) Secondly, they lived at a subsistence level. This is not much in the way of wealth creation. The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas did go much further, and did create wealth from the land, but far less effectively than the Europeans did. They were also in Central and South America, not North America. > also don’t think plundered land had anything to do with wealth creation This is not what I wrote. I wrote that land is not required for wealth creation. It is not the common factor among wealthy economies. And whether it was plundered or not is irrelevant. (All land has been taken at some point in time.) > It is not a reductio ab absurdum argument to ask you to give proof to a statement that you declared. That's a misrepresentation of what I wrote about an office requiring land. Also, it is impossible to prove anything about economics. But what we can do is examine history. When we do, the common theme for highly wealth creating economies is free markets. Not land.