OK you convinced me, now what?

We live nowhere near desert, but we have rain shadow issues at times. We get more sun in winter, as they're mostly dry. Summers are when we get storms/cloud/rain.

 

I suppose that forced abortions, population control, food restrictions, etc are also on your to do list?

 

I've lived a 'rustic' lifestyle for many years, and find it actually very rich and textured. To me, living in an apartment in a city, surrounded by the cold hard surfaces of an urban environment, sealed into a capsule with artificial climate, dependent upon dead and lifeless supermarket foods, purchased in yet another sealed capsule of a building (with no windows), spending my days sitting in some other sealed capsule (office), and never getting closer to the business of organic life than a fart, is the ultimate in austerity.

Instead, I'm outdoors with dirt under my feet and in my hands ... interacting with the entirety of the process of producing clean and living food. I'm out in the early morning frost, bringing in the essential firewood we use for heating, cooking, and producing hot water. I watch my carefully nurtured sourdough starter breath life into a proving dough. I collect free range eggs from my chickens. I experience the satisfaction of planting the right kind of trees to keep summer heat out of the house, etc etc etc. IOW, I interact with the process of staying alive and staying comfortable ... every day. I do not have to live as a highly dependent and therefore imprisoned parasite, 100 places down the line from the source. I am the source.

FTR, I've lived this way for decades. I also knew and know plenty of young people who live the same way. I probably know more young people doing it, than people my own age. Further, there is NOTHING sedentary about this life. I cannot believe you actually thought it was! My day starts at 5.30am, and the only times I sit down are when I'm typing here. In total probably no more than an hour or two per day. The rest of it I'm on the go.

 

All well and good but you are a one percenter if that and 99.9% of true believes would not live like you if they had any choice in the matter. I live like you but still get demonized because I don't believe. Go figure.

 

A city dweller (who depends upon complex and power-hungry infrastructure to stay alive) is NEVER in a position to demonise you, in that case. Laugh and point, is my recommendation.

 

Unless you are seriously self-sufficient, including generating your own power, you are wrong. City dwellers are more efficient on a per capita basis, simply because providing infrastructure to someone five feet away is cheaper than providing it to someone half a mile away. City dwellers live closer together, so less infrastructure needed per person.

There is a reason it took government intervention — the Rural Electrification Program — to extend electrical service to the country.

 

If you had been paying attention to the conversation you are commenting on you would know we do generate our in power.

 

If it is cheaper why does it cost so much? And no way to grow any food. Totally dependent on others.

 

<yawn> You have decided not to know the facts because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil. Simple.

 

Which is garbage.

No, just misapprehending them because they ignore the elephant in the room: the forcible removal of workers' option of supporting themselves without paying landowners full market value just for permission to do so.

Oh? Where?

Nothing but more evasions from you.

A fan of Marxism accusing someone else of ignoring the reality?? ROTFL!!

<yawn> It doesn't surprise me -- in fact, it was utterly predictable -- that you falsely, disingenuously and despicably claim I am "incapable" of using Georgism to comment on environmentalism when I am not a Georgist and have no interest in commenting on environmentalism.

 

Even the orthodox says otherwise.

Shush now with your Georgist grunt. You're replying to a factual comment. They support their analysis with empirical analysis.

He plays pretend, for good reason.

You do childish very well. I'm not a Marxist, but I acknowledge their influence. You're a Georgist and you can't acknowledge their influence.

You're commenting on an 'Environment and Conservation' sub-forum and you have no interest in environmentalism? Sounds like you're telling me you're trolling. Tut tut

 

Yes, and by the exact same "logic," people were property not so very long ago.

And that has occasionally happened in history. But it can't happen if the tax is limited to what someone is willing and able to pay to use the land.

No it didn't. You are just makin' $#!+ up. That is normal, routine, and expected. All apologists for landowner privilege do it, always have, and always will. That is a natural law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.

But they didn't walk away, did they? They liquidated the massive, exorbitant welfare subsidy giveaways that they had been given by the community, pocketing vast, untaxed capital gains.

No, that's just more false and absurd garbage from you.

Your claims are self-evidently false and absurd. It was not the ultra-rich that bid up the prices of land. It was regular people attracted to the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners.

No, it was the greed of rich, privileged, parasitic landowners for unearned wealth that caused those referendums, which have been extremely successful in shoveling unearned wealth into landowners' pockets in return for nothing.

 

I doubt that. If you did, you would know your question is silly and disingenuous.

And the answer is blatantly obvious: Canada has double the USA's income mobility precisely BECAUSE poor Canadians have twice as much access to higher-paying jobs than poor Americans. Now go Google "income mobility" and start reading, that's a good boy.

 

Let's not forget that you don't actually want to stop landownership. You're going for a Georgist grunt, where you think marginal tax reform will sort out these "evil" tax owners.

 

What are you referring to, specifically?

And most people, no matter where they live, don’t grow their own food. Which is what makes civilization possible, by the way: technological advancement was made possible when farmers were able to grow enough food to feed extra people, so those other people didn’t have to spend most of their day acquiring food, and could instead spend time on dedicated research and innovation.

 

Is this supposed to make sense? Why do Canadians have twice as much access? Actually go beyond Georgist rant for a change.

 

Which would be a hint.

<yawn> Zip your lip, sonny boy. You are not offering any comment that is of interest to anyone but yourself, and it is only of interest to you because it is your preferred form of masturbation.

No, that's false; your incessant claims that I am a Georgist are not factual, as I have proved to you many times.

Only in the same way the epicycle and phlogiston theorists did.

He makes false accusations, for good reason.

You do despicably disingenuous very well. In fact, do you do anything else?

You slobber over Marx every time his ignorance or stupidity is demonstrated.

ROTFL!! You're the one here who is OBSESSED with claiming Georgists have no influence.

No interest in commenting on it. The environment is not the same as environmentalism.

CAPISCI?

This, from YOU??!?!?

ROTFLMAO!!!

 

The only thing I can reply to. Hint, show more cunning!

 

Too funny.

 

It is supposed to identify a fact. You might want to try it sometime.

I am shocked -- shocked! -- as that is actually an honest and sensible question from you, probably the first I have ever seen you ask in this forum.

Better publicly funded education would be one possible reason. Better access to health care, especially for poor children. Fewer -- MANY fewer -- people with criminal records for committing victimless "crimes." Stricter rules against discrimination. A much more equal income distribution that leaves more money on the table for workers by not giving as much to rich, greedy, privileged parasites. Etc.

Despicable. As usual.

 

Ahhh, you don't actually have a labour economics argument. I was being overly optimistic. My apologies.

You do have a habit of copying blubber. It does amuse.

Human capital theory then?

 

Why do you always feel you have to tell fibs about what I have plainly written? You are aware that I have stated many times than land cannot rightly be property.

You are repeating the disingenuous filth that makes you detestable.

You again show your disingenuous side. Shifting the burden of taxation off desirable economic activity and onto privilege can be called many things, but "marginal" is not one of them.

 

You go beyond Georgist tax? How?

Goergist ranting still makes me smile!

You honrstly think a hange in the tax system is anything but marginal change? That's terribly Georgist!

 

Mainly by restoring the individual right to use land that ownership of it removed, and Georgist tax policies would not restore. We have also gone over Pigovian taxes, as you know but disingenuously pretend to have forgotten.

False and disingenuous bleating still makes me ill.

So is 1+1=2. I'm not going to deny anything just because Henry George or Karl Marx or anyone else said it.

 

You forgot to mention how you go beyond Georgist tax? We both know your efforts to refer to Pigovian tax were cretinous. Have a try to put it right!