site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33194 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the value of what they think their home/land is truly worth, with the caveat being that if someone offers to purchase at said price they are legally compelled to accept it

This is even worse. Under either the present system or full gay space communism georgism, at least I do not wake up one morning and get told I have to move out within the next month.

You are robbing the entire owner surplus here. I am sure the grocery store would like to figure out exactly how much I am willing to pay for a loaf of milk or a jar of bread, or the car salesman to figure out exactly what a car is worth to me.

There is being more economically efficient, and 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 have a bunch of things in my house that I would like to sell for their market price but the transaction costs are too high to bother. That is essentially negative surplus for me. But I also own things that I value much more than their market value in cash, which is positive surplus, so it balances out. So the idea of a future where I lose the positive surplus but lose the negative surplus is extremely distressing.

loaf of milk or a jar of bread

You must go to a different grocery store than me

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?

Can you name one such thing that can't be replaced by a good-enough reproduction if it were ever lost or broken?

Yes, location! This is what the entire point of land ownership is to begin with!

If I live in a neighborhood with a nice school, people I know, family nearby, close to my job, etc. then there's literally no way to reproduce it even with infinite money - unless everyone and everything moves to an exact replica in some other location, which requires moving the entire world, which is both impossible and makes buying my original home pointless.

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

If you know even a smidgen about the financial acumen and long-term planning capabilities of the median American, you should realize that just about no-one will set their asking price """correctly""".

You could offload a significant portion of the price-setting burden to professionals by inverting the system. Have purchase offers go through the government land registry, and base the land tax on the highest offer rejected in the past year or something.

Offers unanswered in some time are rejected by default, and you have a somewhat fair system to assess land value for tax purposes where the owner isn't forced into regular active price setting or having to sell for a previously committed price.

In such a system purchase offers would presumably need collateral or preapproved mortgages to ensure against frivolous purchase offers.

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.

Why are we letting financial illiterates sit on land that could be producing much greater value?

Because its their land, and properly their decision to sit on it or not. Not yours, not even "ours".

Right, and the issue of people being too financially illiterate to know the 'right' price for their property has been solved for decades upon decades, so this is simply not a good objection to the overall point.

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

People are not cogs in an economy. An "economy" is literally the art and science of managing households. To destroy the concept of a household in the service of household management would be a horrifying historical irony, and so fundamentally inhuman I'm having trouble staying civil over it.

How is it unfair to have someone name the value they believe their house is worth for taxation purposes, but fair to have the government declare a value and tax on that value by fiat?

That's been my point the entire time. The most fair way to do a land value tax is to have the person who owns the land declare the value, whilst holding them to said valuation if a sale offer is made.

Financial illiteracy is not a viable objection to this because it is a solved problem.

You did not propose having someone name their value for taxation purposes; you proposed having people name the price at which they would be obligated to accept and sell.

all of the 'surplus' available to them,

Surplus is an established economic concept, not something for scare quotes.

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

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. I would probably pay more much than $400 to have a table but anyone trying to find my price point is my blood enemy. That is valuable information. Mail me an offer if you want it. Tell me how much it is worth to you.

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

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.

Okay, so I set the price at $1B, and everyone else does that too. Why not? Oh yes, because this will bump the property tax beyond what I can afford. 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.

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.

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.

Fine, we set it to 0.000001%, I set the value of my table to $999999.00, pay a cent a year tax and we are back to where we are now, no change in anyone's behaviour. Except that's not what's being lined up. The whole point of this system is to change people's behaviour, no? So the tax rate will necessarily be raised to the point where the choice becomes difficult, where accepting a low offer or paying a high tax are equally painful.

This is like a pro-gun advocate saying

"So your real disagreement is really with the calibre it sounds like. Don't worry, once I have power to set gun laws I could just set a calibre limit of .01, that would barely hurt a fly! Just let me set the laws and we can sort that out!"

Except that's not what's being lined up. The whole point of this system is to change people's behaviour, no? So the tax rate will necessarily be raised to the point where the choice becomes difficult, where accepting a low offer or paying a high tax are equally painful.

Presumably it's the same people who own the land being taxed who are voting on the proposals for setting the tax rate.

In which case, again, this is the fairest possible way to do it.

That's the other neat feature of the land value tax: the people impacted by the tax are incentivized, by nature of being property-owners, to try to find the tax rate that isn't exorbitant and burdensome, but still enough to pay for the services that they rely on as property-owners.

So again, are you objecting to the tax being imposed at all, or to some other aspect of the process?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats