@faceh's banner p

faceh


				

				

				
4 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 04:13:17 UTC

				

User ID: 435

faceh


				
				
				

				
4 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 04:13:17 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 435

This makes the argument for getting value-producing assets out of their hands stronger.

Why are we letting financial illiterates sit on land that could be producing much greater value? This is no way to run an economy!

But more seriously, fine. Require that they consult with a professional before declaring a price. An agent of sorts. Ah, there we go. Lets set up a profession of "Real Estate Agents", who are familiar with local market conditions, that people can hire so they can set a good asking price for their house and not get taken advantage of by buyers. Maybe require licensing.

Crazy idea, I know.

Voluntary transactions, the same way we clear most markets.

Yes, that's the trick. You ask a person "at what price would you voluntarily part with this piece of property?"

and if they offer such a price, they should by definition be willing to accept an offer at that price without a fuss.

They're free to name an arbitrarily high amount, but then they'll be held to that number by being taxed on it.

If you are objecting to the morality of taxing assets at all you can find this problematic Otherwise, there's really no fairer way to establish a valuation for purposes of imposing a tax.

Question then is, do you see anything wrong with abusing, torturing, or otherwise putting animals to other 'inhumane' uses.

Since once you've accepted that killing them for sustenance is permissible, seemingly anything else is on the table.

Why not? Oh yes, because this will bump the property tax beyond what I can afford

So your real disagreement is really with the tax rate it sounds like.

Advocate for the tax to be brought down to, say 0.0001% of the property's value and it ceases to be a problem.

We just have to fiddle with the dials a bit to solve your objection.

If your problem is with taxes as a concept then just say that! Its a fine position!

On the other hand, if I bring it down to what I can afford, bots will no longer leave me alone. Point is, you’re trying to pull a fast one here.

I'm trying to explain how this system can be made fair, rather than depending on the government to set accurate values by fiat, which is how almost everywhere does it currently.

I do not fucking want to wake up and find my kitchen table replaced with $400 in cash even though that is what it is "worth" in some market sense.

At what price would this start to be acceptable to you? That's the price you set.

At some value X you'd be pleased to wake up and find your table replaced with $X in cash.

People have things to do with their day besides deal with transaction bots.

Then set the price high enough that the transaction bots leave you alone. If you place a premium on privacy and autonomy, all this hypothetical requires is that you price that premium in.

Well then it's not strictly voluntary, is it?

In the same way any tax isn't strictly voluntary, yes.

But this argument generalizes to literally any sort of tax you could impose. I'm happy to have that discussion.

But I thought we were engaging with the LVT idea itself.

If you can't afford to pay the taxes on your subjective valuation, you're forced out of your home just as surely as if the government re-assessed your property at a higher rate than you can afford.

Which is why you better set your valuation at the correct level!

Is it better to depend on the government to declare a valuation which you have almost no control over?

This is why we don't normally tax wealth.

Also because wealth can be easily hidden or obfuscated. As opposed to land, which is physically located exactly where you expect it to be at all times, and can't be hidden.

But surely taxing land doesn't prevent someone from shifting their wealth into other, non-taxed assets!!!!

You know, I'm going to call you on this one:

Under what possible, realistic set of circumstances would someone actually be willing to pay $1,000,000 to have sex with a particular woman, rather than just buying time with 500 top-tier escorts?

And what person would experience emotional distress in excess of what 1 million dollars could ameliorate?

Are you familiar with the legal distinction between "Allodial Title" and "Fee Simple" ownership?

No. You come to me with an offer and earnest money, and I decide if it is worth my time to bother listening to you based largely on the number.

I mean this happens, constantly, all the time. If you live in a desirable area you will get a veritable stream of calls, texts, e-mails trying to make you an offer on your land.

It's dreadfully annoying to filter.

From my perspective, I'd much rather just publicly set the asking price for which its worth my time to even engage with a possible buyer, and only interact with those who can prove the ability to pay the asking price, and everyone else can pound sand.

If someone values my home at $3 million because of the feng shui, they can offer me $2 million and keep $1 million of surplus for themselves.

And if you think there's someone out there who values your house at $3 mil, maybe set the price at $3 mil, or $2.5 to split the difference.

Nothing in this hypothetical situation demands you set the price exactly where you value it. You're free to set a 'strategic' asking price too.

The women I know best wouldn't dream of setting up an OF account.

How do you know this?

Would you expect them to admit it if they did?

Regardless of the answers, the fact that this is a question that gets asked suggests these girls and women who put themselves in that marketplace are not the norm, despite how it seems.

I'm really no longer sure what "the norm" is, other than all indications are that its trending towards running an Onlyfans being a relatively acceptable practice.

And more to the point, it means any female who wants to figure out how to satisfy male sexual preferences need only check into what some of the top content producers are putting out.

Women now have no real excuse for being unaware of men's sexual preferences.

And guys now get the impression that females are willing to satisfy those preferences even if they claim to find them disgusting and crude.

An equivalent would be normalization of, say, fighting and violence for men.

AH, but I don't think that is equivalent.

Sexuality is often idealized as something to be shared with solely your committed partner, and seeking sexual gratification outside the relationship is considered adulterous.

Hence why having a sexually explicit OF might be a violation of that relationship.

I don't think a man's capacity for violence is something that has the same level of "sacredness" where he is expected to express it solely to his partner.

Although I see your point that we have a social interest in restraining the male tendency to violence.

If Bud Light had gone out of its way to create a special can for a child molester who was making tik tok videos espousing how fun it is to molest children, that would also not be looked at as "a minor screw up".

But Light went out of their way to put a Trans influencer on the can mere days after a Trans mass shooter killed a bunch of kids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting

So in that context... yeah.

Well this gets into my other conversation on the topic.

If we care about the object for the good it provides other people, then surely the solution is to create an extremely convincing forgery and just... never disclose that the original was destroyed.

Much larger deceptions have been enacted throughout history for the purpose of maintaining the symbolic importance of a given relic or person.

And I don't think you would be able to convince the person with a dead sibling that she should refrain from violently enacting revenge on the killer even if it destroys a single cultural artifact... provided that it is the only real way to enact such vengeance.

I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable telling someone "no, your loss isn't great enough to justify destroying this cultural artifact just to hurt your sister's killer." Scale it up to something like, I dunno, The Sistine Chapel or the Statute of Liberty, where the true value is mostly bound up in the physical structure itself (and would be hard to recreate) and I start to agree.

At least part of this is due to the fact that a painting can be more easily 'replicated' than a building, especially one as meticulously studied as the Mona Lisa.

Right, but without an Allodial title, the 'ownership' of the land isn't truly vested in the current holder, as the title will be traced back to some governmental entity or other bestowing it on some person if you go far enough back.

And the land will revert back to that entity should it ever be fully abandoned.

This assumption of governmental ownership still underlies the current system.

at least I do not wake up one morning and get told I have to move out within the next month.

If you set your asking price correctly, then this should be priced in.

You are robbing the entire owner surplus here.

Again, if they set their price accurately and account for all the value they can reasonably extract from the land, they should be capturing close to all of the 'surplus' available to them, OR there's simply nobody out there that would match their asking price.

then there is negotiating with the swarm of AI drones outside my house exactly how much my child's life is worth to me compared to their value of him in paperclips.

I guess I have a hard time accepting that someone would be so attached to a piece of land that they cannot express a price point at which they would gleefully part with it.

As opposed to parting with a human who is, from an emotional standpoint, of nigh-infinite value and not replaceable.

If you set your price high enough, you could use the sale proceeds to pay to have the entire property reconstructed in exacting detail at a different location, such that you would barely notice the difference.

But I also own things that I value much more than their market value in cash, which is positive surplus, so it balances out.

Can you name one such thing that can't be replaced by a good-enough reproduction if it were ever lost or broken? Do you have some unique pieces of art or some item that has sentimental value only to you?

Otherwise, why do you value such items more than a near-identical one you could just buy on the market?

An easily avoided risk if you just apologize and refrain from the behavior in the future.

More directly, the reason I am not particularly put off by this risk is that the whole point is we want to filter the worst actors from the dating pool so as to improve the experience for everyone.

Either the threat of possible violence scares them away, or they get beaten to the point they are permanently maimed and thus are less of a threat overall.

Fine. Maybe they can get a large monetary reward to compensate the suffering, then ban them from dating apps for life.

How often do you think such a maiming would ACTUALLY occur under normal conditions?

It's a reasonable idea, definitely more feasible, but that's 100 minutes in total. By the 10th fresh opponent you'd be a sitting duck, especially if they're preparing/prepared for the same trial.

In my mind, it's 10 opponents who have already qualified for 'adulthood' and thus know how to pull their punches and know exactly what it is like being on the other end of this treatment.

By the 10th fresh opponent you'd be a sitting duck, especially if they're preparing/prepared for the same trial.

Yes, and that is part of the point. To be exhausted, bruised, hurting (hopefully not actually injured) and barely able to move, and then to have to dig deep and fight on anyhow.

The lesson being that sometimes life is just not fair and when you don't want to go on, quitting is certainly an option (indeed, you can withdraw from the gauntlet at any time you want!) but it won't solve your problems and certainly won't be rewarded.

The difficulty is that making parenthood the benchmark is that it would accord a teenage single mum higher status than a childless man like myself while incentivising the creation of yet more teenage single mums, so I added the educational criteria to tilt the balance back to a range of more long term pro-social outcomes (promoting stable relationships, increased fertility rates, parental responsibility/discipline). Totally unworkable in practice anyway as it would never get support, people would be anywhere between their 30s up to their 70s or even 80s before they were granted status.

Yes, the policies would almost certainly have to be introduced as a full package of changes in order to work, and there will be second-order/unintended effects.

Just have to make it clear that the goal is more intact families and more well-developed children.

Society often sucks.

Being 'pro-social' means helping it suck less.

I am genuinely certain that this is the most common definition in use by most people when using these terms.

So from a legal perspective, are we right to criminalize and punish animal cruelty whilst carving out a large exception for the animals we eat?

I'll take that bet.

It's also fair to say that sometimes stereotypes are more reflective of reality than of individual bias.

(not refuting your point, tho)

But you don't see them sponsoring a Family Friendly Drag Queen show and depicting opponents to such a show as bigots.

Basically, they refuse to acknowledge that there's any negative side to it, and don't aim criticisms at any group. It's not their intent to offend, and part of that is to make it as annoyingly positive as possible.

People value the existence of the Mona Lisa. Destroying it destroys something which people value.

Unless I'm mistaken you're directly invoking a utilitarian argument for why the Mona Lisa has value.

Because people could, in theory, value the copy of the Mona Lisa just as much as the original... if they don't know it is a copy.

Else, from whence could the value come?

If the value is based on the fact that people value it, this gets to my point that replacing it with a copy prevents the actual harm in question.

You seem to be tying the whole situation to how much 'good' people experience due to the existence of the Mona Lisa, and that sounds like Utilitarianism to me.

Deontology would be "It is bad to destroy rare works of art in all cases."

Virtue Ethics would be something like "Good people don't destroy cultural artifacts."

Your ethical basis is, what?

If rationalists are quokkas, then they are, if anything, more prone to letting bad actors rise in their ranks than the baseline.

That doesn't quite follow, since the alternative to quokkas is to have virtually nothing but bad actors vying for control.

Whereas in quokka-land the number of bad actors is on average lower, so we'd expect fewer of them to rise through the ranks, in aggregate, and it would be all the more notable when one did because it bucks a trend.

Yeah, long enough ago that it doesn't bother me daily, but I still have her face seared into my memory and I know the world is slightly worse off than it could have been.

Suffering through that event really impacted my perspective on maintaining relationships even through hardships. Namely: I generally refuse to give up on friendships that I've come to value.

But you're not being clear on why mockery shouldn't be allowed.

The pronoun people haven't set up a ruleset that would exclude it. So they in fact imply that any pronoun you want to use SHOULD be allowed until proven insincere.