Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Legitimate LVT criticism

Expand Messages
  • mattbieker
    ... But in that scenario, anything greater than a replacement-level population growth would result in harm. I ve actually seen anti-geoists argue along these
    Message 1 of 199 , Feb 27, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
      >
      > I provided the Gilligan simulation. It showed (you will have forgotten) how everybody but the new parents may be harmed just by somebody having a kid. It was an extreme and somewhat whacky example certainly, but it did what was intended, showed that under certain cirmcumstances long-term residents might have to move, or even become homeless just because others might like to have a lot of kids.

      But in that scenario, anything greater than a replacement-level population growth would result in harm. I've actually seen anti-geoists argue along these lines. They paint a similar scenario, and point out how, if they had a right to own land, the excess population would be others' problem.

      The problem with the scenario is that over-population is the problem, and any system at all is going to result in suffering.


      > Now, what arguments have you or Roy brought?
      >
      > W

      We've pointed out that such a limitation lacks positive justification. We've pointed out that the limitation is arbitrary, and could equally easily be applied to many groups other than children. We've pointed out that analogs currently in existence do not have such restrictions. Etc., etc.
    • walto
      ... Right. Both almost surely true. ... And the truths find there way in there too! W
      Message 199 of 199 , Mar 5, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > So you are saying that the existence of the Flat Earth Society DOES make the spheroidal shape of the earth disputable?
        > >
        > > My degree of confidence is roughly the same as that in my above judgment regarding your personality. Put it this way: is it possible I'm wrong about either the shape of the earth or your arrogance? Sure, I could be wrong about pretty much every proposition that seems obvious to me--that is the nature of human fallibility. But it's really, really doubtful in both cases.
        >
        > So you claim the earth's spheroidal shape is not only disputable, but about as disputable as your opinion of my personality?
        >

        Right. Both almost surely true.



        > "A sick man dreams nothing so dreadful that some philosopher isn't saying it." -- Marcus Terentius Varro
        >
        > -- Roy Langston
        >


        And the truths find there way in there too!

        W
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.