orwell_bruh

4 ms·

1.
by orwell_bruh 3y ago
That's the kind of fine print that would kill any popular support for LVT. It's also a false dichotomy. We don't need LVT to solve housing. We don't even know if LVT would solve housing. On the other hand, we know exactl
2.
by orwell_bruh 3y ago
Yes, I identify as someone with reliable heating and power who eats real food, has many children and like to go on vacation from time to time. Btw, it's not me being deceived but eventually you'll figure that out, I am sure.
3.
by orwell_bruh 3y ago
This benefit is hypothetical as long as you are not selling your land. So, up to the point where you would actually sell your land, LVT is simply a liability. Even if eventually you sell are not guranteed to actually make the amount implied
4.
by orwell_bruh 3y ago
If I did see CO2 as a problem I'd still be against wind and solar and all the other harebrained schemes that are mathematically proven to be unable to even make a dent in climate change. However, they are guranteed to lower our standar
5.
by orwell_bruh 3y ago
One implication of what you write seems to be that every property owner is incentevized to NIMBY any improvements to the area that they don't care about. For example, if I am "child free" I will now oppose the building of sch
6.
by orwell_bruh 3y ago
I find that people like to sooth themselves with thoughts like that. "They can never ban X", "I would just do Y". The state can absolute ban anything. It bans certain plants! This surveilance doesnt have to be 100%. Big