Common Sense

America's biggest danger as of 2025. The infiltration strategy: 1. Be defeated (e.g. communists, racists, leftists etc) 2. Infiltrate the opposition anonymously 3. Pretend to radicalize along the opposing worldview 4. Become a prominent voice for the opposition 5. Subtly introduce your own evil principles as "solutions" to the grievances of the opposition 6. Denounce and smear those who expose your strategy as being sympathetic to your hidden true beliefs 7. Make the opposition movement militant, compelling the rhetoric, while working ironically towards your own goals. It's already happened many times, and it will happen again. To prevent step 4, the right must thoroughly vet anyone who wants to speak for them.

Luckily taxes are not locked in permanently forever, and can be adjusted depending on market forces. So if 100% of Americans produce domestically, then discussions can be held about alternative forms of taxation. But also that's never going to happen, because there will always be some who import and some who don't. We collect revenue from those who import and we reap the benefits of domestic self-sufficiency among those who found the tariff cost worth less than the cost of building domestic production. It's true that we don't gain both benefits simultaneously from every transaction. The goal is to get one of the two benefits as a mix of transaction types exist within the markets.

@SensibleSimio @RioVeradonir It is odd to argue that tariff revenue is intended to supplant income taxes while also claiming it will supposedly benefit domestic industry because of reduced international trade. It’s like saying “we like income tax revenue but also want to decrease people’s incomes.”

The data shows rent control has the opposite effect you’d want (and for explicable reasons). Leftists deny it by focusing on intent over results. In this sense, tariffs are the “rent control” of the New Right. Same foolish dynamic. But before MAGA, tariffs were also leftwing.

@MittBloomberg @RioVeradonir Yeah people who think it does both are being stupid. I'll take the win-win of "either it discourages dependency on foreign influence or it collects revenue". Obviously it doesn't do both simultaneously within the same transaction.

@SensibleSimio @RioVeradonir Well tariffs can be for one thing or another. Either you are collecting revenue, or protecting industry, somehow its current advocates think its doing both.

@RioVeradonir @cscott_oafc @amablue_ What's your perceived lesser evil then?

@GgeSeth66026 @ayypolitico @RioVeradonir Good thing I wasn't arguing for that, if any of you were capable of reading

@SensibleSimio @ayypolitico @RioVeradonir Well to be fair, that is a pretty stupid thing to argue for (especially within the capitalist political-economy).

@spicyoscar @GmorganJr No we're not.

@SensibleSimio @GmorganJr We are already beginning to shrink and decline thanks to the unnecessary war with Iran.

America First interests have NEVER resided solely in America.

@UkieDanya @sleepy_devo I'd say nice try, but that was really lazy

@SensibleSimio @sleepy_devo Yeah, the right is violent

look at the reflection in the window bro, this is a fake image

@dbongino That's impossible if you're defining "right" correctly

@Mr_Ora_ @sleepy_devo I get that, but I disagree. I have never said it's okay to celebrate deaths of leftists as "payback", even as they celebrated Kirk's assassination. That's why I think Trump is in the wrong. And I won't accept a third round of "payback" against Trump.

@SensibleSimio @sleepy_devo I kinda understand where you are coming from, but I think it is now ok for people to say that about Trump after what he said.

can't wait for trump to die, i'll be glad because he can no longer hurt innocent people. (i expect the maximum pushback i receive will be "that's brutal dev")

The state has a de facto claim to the land, sure. That isn't self justifying that it can do whatever it wants and trample rights all the same. Yes, it *can* do that, because it holds that power, but that doesn't *justify* it. "It's standard economics" is kind of an excuse. Just because it's popular or common or familiar doesn't mean it's correct or moral. No one has a natural right to "capture" that value. Not even the government. So your scheme to give it to the government instead of the actual owner of the land is arbitrary. If land tax is based on the value the community confers to it, then surely it does affect who gets access to land. If you can't afford the tax, you can't have the land. In fact, any monetary cost for anything affects access.

@SensibleSimio @RioVeradonir @cscott_oafc Because land taxes are non-distortionary, they do not affect who gets access to land. There is no change in how the land is use or by whom. I don't like land taxes because of how they distribute land, I like them because they have no effect on how we distribute land.

Who would you be renting the land *from*? The government. Why does the government get an inherent right to the land? Why don't they pay a tax? The government didn't labor and produce that physical space, so it should be subject to the same tax paid to... well? Nature itself? At the end of the day, the Lockian/Rothbardian framework for property ownership holds true. You own what you can defend, and that's how our government holds land. Your Georgist framework can exist as an abstraction within that. The government can impose that rent because it is the one ultimately defending all this land. But it's arbitrary-- not some true balancing of costs or natural economic structure. You like how it distributes access to land, despite the negative implications on rights and freedoms. And when we start tolerating these abstractions that distribute property and access and wealth in ways that satisfy some at the expense of others, we tread into very dangerous, and I would even say, evil, territory.

@SensibleSimio @RioVeradonir @cscott_oafc As you increase the land value taxes, the net present value drops. The price you'd pay up front decreases as the land taxes increase, and at 100% land value taxes you'd pay $0. That's just renting the land. Here's an example with an interactive graph: desmos.com/calculator/5fj…

@amablue_ @RioVeradonir @cscott_oafc You might have to explain how you think it happens no matter what. I don't think it happens no matter what. If you don't charge people for land ownership, then people aren't being charged for simply taking up their own space.

@SensibleSimio @RioVeradonir @cscott_oafc That happens no matter what. Either you're buying the land or you're renting it. Land taxes are good specifically because the rental cost is exactly equal to what you would've paid anyway. There is no additional cost, just a redirection of unearned rents.

@FurryJokerTFF Those of us who were abhorred by Charlie's assassination can say Trump was in the wrong. Those who cheered Charlie's assassination aren't entitled to have an opinion on anything ever.

I'm gonna be blunt. To those upset Trump is celebrating Mueller's de*th. I seem to remember Charlie Kirk getting FAR more celebrating his demise.

@Tyras_Mikhail @FurryJokerTFF No, I expect better from everyone.

@FurryJokerTFF Two things can be bad at the same time. Plus, it should be expected that the President of the United States to act with far more tact than 'EmilyQueer777 (ACAB, AnCom, 🏳️‍⚧️🇵🇸🌊🛠️)'

The good old days where people were going to be starved for not taking experimental drugs... good cars, light bulbs, and stoves were banned because of the scary sun monster, federal employees were stripping and fucking in and outside of government buildings when they weren't otherwise being cartoonish drag queens, political opponents were being shot, a literal ministry of truth was unironically being formed, foreign enemies were ramping up military invasions because what was America ever going to do about it? Launder more money to the DNC through Ukraine? Miss those days.

@BoringBiz_ @adammocklerr I miss Joe Biden. I don't care what anyone else says about him. It was way better under Joe.

Coming to the realization that he was named Sleepy Joe because you could go to sleep at night without worrying about having to monitor the situation next day

@amablue_ @RioVeradonir @cscott_oafc The reason not to set land taxes as high as possible is because it punishes people for owning land. Everyone has to take up some amount of space. Once you start imposing fees for taking up space, you're charging people for existing at all. On principle, that is just evil.

@RioVeradonir @SensibleSimio @cscott_oafc We don't agree then because land taxes are great. They can nearly if not totally fund the government without any additional cost to people. There's no reason to not of set land taxes as high as possible. Even if all we did was return the money as to the people they'd be worth it

@RioVeradonir @cscott_oafc @amablue_ I'm in favor of minimizing taxes in general. But, if we have to have them somewhere? I think tariffs are the lesser evil.

@SensibleSimio @cscott_oafc @amablue_ I agree with you both. Land taxes and tariffs both suck.

@ayypolitico @RioVeradonir Oh wow, so you really did stop reading Specifically to the part where I literally just said that.

@SensibleSimio @RioVeradonir tariffs are a national import tax on goods. That doesn’t sniff national defense budgets or national infrastructure projects, dunce. I ask in this fancy federal tariff society how do we pay down debts without leading to the collapse of the federation? hint: you can’t

@cscott_oafc @amablue_ @RioVeradonir On the contrary. I'm pointing out how that first sentence inherently contradicts itself if you follow it to its logical conclusion.

@SensibleSimio @amablue_ @RioVeradonir I think you might have just completely ignored that first sentence in his response

@amablue_ @RioVeradonir By that logic, you don't own anything you create either, because it's (virtually) all matter that came from the earth, and you didn't create the earth. Your rule that exempts land ownership from being the same as any other property ownership, is incoherent.

@SensibleSimio @RioVeradonir You own what you labor to create. You didn't create the land. It is part of the commons, and if you want to have exclusive use of a parcel of the commons, you should pay rent based on the value of the land.

@ayypolitico @RioVeradonir So you latched onto the words "abolish taxation entirely" and just stopped reading, huh? That tracks.

@SensibleSimio @RioVeradonir prove you wrong on what exactly? you’re a bot and a moron. Enough said. Arguing about abolishing Taxes is like arguing if the earth was flat.