This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why do you suppose that is? The colloquial meaning of "land"--let's say, "the patches of dirt that are not submerged beneath rivers, lakes, or seas"--makes claims like "nobody creates land and it cannot be created, only improved" clearly false. So when Georgists say "land," they apparently have a technical definition in mind that goes beyond what people think when they hear Georgists say "land."
That sets the whole discussion up for failure straight out of the gate, because you're either being deliberately or inadvertently obtuse about the central subject of discussion. In the United States today, the physical coordinates over which people claim ownership are often the least of what their "real property" (as we call owned land) entails. On the prevailing "bundle of rights" view, in addition to the physical coordinates you own, your "property" also includes things like a right of quiet enjoyment, a right of access, a right against trespass, and so forth. Those are real rights, and often they are not the kind of right that you can really put a fair dollar value on.
There is a school of legal thought, "Law and Economics," which holds roughly that the purpose of law is to facilitate efficient economic exchange. Its founder, Richard Posner, has broadly disclaimed its universal applicability. Much of the law is concerned with economic exchange, yes--but not all of it. Individuals have important interests that should not be violated, not even if the majority says so, not even if the majority would benefit. Just as "land" on your view can also mean "the sea," "real property" means much more than spatial coordinates over which you happen to have dominion. Whatever its effects on markets, Georgism fails to appropriately account for its effects on people.
Great points I’m missing a key part of the Georgist framing. George does explicit define land, labor, capital, and wealth to explain his system. I’m definitely missing some key steps in outlining the argument and assuming people here already know it.
Thanks for the heads up I’ll see if I can make a post summarizing the arguments that convinced me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link