> They are using all the fancy missiles first, but haven't made a safe path to do unguided cheap bombing.
Global media is reporting B-52s over Iran, which implies complete air supremecy and complete Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses, so this, on the face of it, seems to be untrue.
And I think that makes sense because residences impose costs on local services. However if I write a novel aged put it on my bookshelf, or if I paint a picture ad put it on my wall, I’m not imposing a cost on anyone just because these might have some theoretical value. How would their value even be measured?
The effect of a Harberger tax on intellectual property would probably be an upwards transfer of ownership of intellectual property, from people who can't afford to pay taxes on whatever those 100,000x more wealthy are willing to pay.
A Harberger tax might work well in economist-land, where any discrepancy between what wealth I could extract from my property and what wealth I actually extract from it represents an inefficiency that can be addressed by a transfer of ownership at market value at no inconvenience to the original owner. In reality, there are many other reasons than market value that I might hold onto intellectual property.
I think so, yes, or you could place the copyright in the public domain.
Your current situation is a prime example of the failure of current copyrights. You aren't incentivised to produce any new art, it was unearned as you weren't the author, and yet still the state enforces the copyright for you.
It's a solution to the problem raised by the GP - how to fairly value IP.
This whole thread is about how many countries with land taxes don't similarly tax other assets like IP. Whether you think it's fair or not is another question - the blocker isn't fair valuation.
capital gains does not happen on sale of land generally.
These two things are obviously taxed differently because it is to the value of the government to do so, and the value of the government is supposed in many countries to somehow translate into a value for society.
Profits from property sales are often tax as CGT. It's only a select few jurisdictions that don't tax property sales, often with both CGTs and stamp duties.
The difference in how their taxed in the US is certainly not standard globally, nor is it likely to be optimal.
That's a dumb system as it doesn't account for the fact that a piece of property's value can change over time. You write a book, you have to declare its value prior to knowing it's value to consumers. If you aren't independently wealthy already you will never be able to become wealthy by writing books, paintings, songs, etc. as you will have to declare their value quite low in order to pay taxes on them. If it becomes popular the publishing company comes along and forcibly buys it from you for the low value you had to put on it because you couldn't pay the tax, then raises it's value far beyond what the author could afford and profits from the movies rights and etc.
> Yeah, you see, I don’t think you’ve quite understood the art of talking to anyone.
Well, mastering the art of talking to anyone involves being able to initiate a conversation with people of many cultures, in many mental states, in many circumstances.
A master of talking to anyone won't begin with a condescending and invasive comment, as they will recognise that beginning a conversation disrespectfully is unlikely to be received warmly.
Losing your temper when a serious boundary has been crossed is natural and expected. It had a positive outcome in that it stopped your bad behaviour immediately.
> He ended up grabbing me by the throat, while no-one around did a thing to stop him.
The bystander effect is real, but you should also take this opportunity for self-reflection, because in this case, you were the person behaving badly who instigated the situation.
Serious boundary? He put tits in front of my eyes. Am I supposed to remember to keep my eyes pinned to the floor when out in public? What a terrible way you must live.
I’m afraid to say, that if you want a boundary, go home. Otherwise, accept that you’re in public, and people can and will speak to you.
Also, you’ve just justified being violent in response to someone making sounds with their mouth. I bet you’re a calm person to be around, when everyone does what you want.
You’ve suggested they live in a bubble, yet your comments suggest that you expect no-one to “invade” your blissful little privacy bubble, and believe it’s okay to strike out and be physically violent to others if they do.
> Go out into the world and behave like the GP. Your apparent mental model of society will collapse quickly.
The problem you’ve got is that I will win. If you permit escalating mouth words to physical violence, I’ll have stabbed you in the face for your mouth words before you’ve gotten very far. Subduing your propensity for physical escalation is in your favour.
> I agree :D. It's my best formulation to be explicit so far. How would you say it in more natural way to still achieve the same end result?
I think you can't ask it, at least not without self-selecting yourself out of further contact from the majority of people.
> Most people are clueless and will never do anything in return if you're implicitly expecting them to behave in certain manner.
This is somewhat dismissive and maybe warrants some self-reflection. Most people broadcast their feelings extremely visibly and will have expected you to have understood their feelings without having to explicitly explain them to you.
Relationships, healthy ones anyway, are a two way street & need to be nurtured. Like OP I realized over time that most people are lazy and expect a lot out of their relationships without putting any effort in. I like the way OP put it as them being "passive" passengers in the whole relationship journey. It can make for some very exhausting interactions if the bulk of your relationships are like this.
There is a cultural aspect to this. In my opinion American culture because it is so individualistic and market-driven encourages transactional, superficial relationships.
OP's approach might not be palatable to everyone but really any tactic that allows you to filter these people out is going to lead to more satisfying relationships. Just my 2 cents.
> It can make for some very exhausting interactions if the bulk of your relationships are like this.
Yes, agreed, and they weren't friendships to begin with. The OP just didn't recognise that.
> OP's approach might not be palatable to everyone but really any tactic that allows you to filter these people out is going to lead to more satisfying relationships. Just my 2 cents.
It also filters out all potential real friendships and leaves only transactional acquaintances. While they're young, unencumbered, and healthy, these might appears similar to friendships in that they will be people with whom they can hang out, enjoy various activities, and feel part of a community.
However, when life becomes difficult due to illness or injury, family circumstances, etc, transactional acquaintances will disappear and they'll be left isolated. Of course their criteria of a balanced effort ledger will still be satisfied, so maybe they'll be happy.
Or maybe they'll realise too late that holding an account of effort is incompatible with long-term relationships of any type. Too late in that their peers will already have their crystallised social networks, and they'll be unable to grow their own.
> There is a cultural aspect to this. In my opinion American culture because it is so individualistic and market-driven encourages transactional, superficial relationships.
So ironically, this is a real and growing cause of mid- to late-life isolation in developed economie, but it's a result of the mindset the OP is falling into.
Just don't want the GP to fall into the trap that the others were clueless as they commented, because that normally indicates a blindspot on the GP's side, not the people with whom they've interacted.
I have thousands of connections I’ve hanged out during my twenties.
Ive arranged countless parties. People have met eachother in those and are happily married nowadays or have made friends during those events. Somehow the relationship between me and them formed into one where they were expecting me to arrange and include them everytime without offering help or asking me in return. Ive done all the things both of you mentioned and you’re definitely right that this does filter out plenty of people but I dont mind that nowadays.
The ones that get filtered through are the ones I feel like I should spend my energy and I have strong feeling that some of the effort does echo back to me during the times I dont have energy to be the one who arranges. It feels very nice but again we have different needs and YMMV. This works for me and I should have been more explicit about my background in the initial post as well.
> Somehow the relationship between me and them formed into one where they were expecting me to arrange and include them everytime without offering help or asking me in return.
That is awesome! I wish I had a friend like that in my twenties.
Yes that kind of connections wearies you down. It is better to have contribution but people always were lazy and will be lazy.
I was organizing few parties here and there myself. I was organizing movie Thursdays for example. People were complaining but attending. We did watched few good movies like Nebraska. When I stopped organizing them they did not were organizing anything like that themselves.
This is just how people are.
There are counter examples like I mentioned above but they are rare. These are the people I should have prioritised much more and way earlier. It took me way too long to realise that quality >>> quantity regarding relationships.
I hope you will still arrange movie Thursdays sometime in the future even if nobody else will :)!
Also I'm happy that you have the few good friends for 15+ years. Grass might always be greener on the other side but I would trade those immediately for the thousands of acquittances.
Okay, I think some significant self-reflection is in order here.
> There are counter examples like I mentioned above but they are rare.
Those counter examples you mention also behave this way (and you likely do too), it's just they enjoyed your company and were willing to reciprocate. Those who didn't aren't clueless or anti-social, they just weren't willing to reciprocate with you.
> It took me way too long to realise that quality >>> quantity regarding relationships.
That is true, but be careful in defining quality as equal effort. You will self-select for people for whom friendship is transactional rather than emergent, and those "friendships" (in quotes because many including me would consider those to be acquaintances rather than friends by definition) tend not to endure hardship, where friendship by definition becomes unbalanced in effort.
> Okay, I think some significant self-reflection is in order here.
This feels hurtful even though its hard to disagree. Self-reflection is of course useful and I’ve done it for countless of hours and been in therapy for years.
Your boxes for transactional or non-transactional relationships are too simplistic. You maybe feel like you can compare me to someone you know and try to fit this example to your own experiences. All relationships have at least 1 person who is doing some effort to keep it going. Good ones have 2 persons.
Its of course too early to say if my methods will form long-lasting ones or not but it feels like theres a chance and so far so good. Please link me long-term studies which prove this wrong ;)
I wish you all the best and I hope you can self-reflect on your own assumptions too :)
Global media is reporting B-52s over Iran, which implies complete air supremecy and complete Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses, so this, on the face of it, seems to be untrue.
reply