Looks like DeSantis Picked a Fight With the Wrong Rodent

Do you only care about property rights when it has something to do with a governor you don’t like?

Hey dipshit, remember that time you said I never mentioned being from Alabama or took pride in Alabamians? And then I told you to go look up the pages of me doing that exact thing?

And how I had done so more than you and your home state?

Remember how big an idiot you felt after?

Now I want you to go up to the top of the page and click on the little magnifying glass.

In the Search field type in ‘Zoning’.

In the Posted by Member field type in ‘Ancalagon’.

Read through the two pages and decade and a half of me arguing against zoning restrictions and think about what you did wrong this time and what you can do better next time so you don’t just keep doing this to yourself over and over again.

Anc's entire post was about how property rights should be as free as possible considering the property owners impacts on others. He also seems historically very consistent on that.

Special treatment for pragmatic reasons is still special treatment.

Liberals are happy a corporation got one over on the government, and libertarians are upset over same.

Mods, threads from Bizarro Wordforge are leaking into regular Wordforge again. Fix the god damned board already!

I missed something. Where did a liberal state they were happy a corporation got one over on the government?

It's just like what Fisherman's Worf said: both are shitty but Disney in this instance is less shitty than the government who was punishing them for exercising their free speech as a private organization.

The Religious Right does not want any compromise. At all. They want Disney to be "Christian values Only". The problem is, modern US Christians completely lack imagination and creativity. Disney would fail eversomuchmoreso than they currently are. and DeSantis is going to look foolish in the end.

There are 3 types of power. Political, Economical, and Social. Disney has Economical and Social power. DeSantis barely has any Political power. He's going to lose this.

DeSantis pledges to escalate again, and is looking at raising taxes on hotels and other Disney revenue streams.

Though this is probably only partially due to the culture war.

The reality is that Florida is FUCKED.

Not because of the GOP, though that too.

But because all the major insurers have fled the state and the state, and the reinsurance companies (the ones that insure the insurers) are panicked over climate change and are drastically inceasing their rates.

The average insurance policy for property is expected to go up 40-60% this year, and the state fund as insurer of last resort has already needed $3 Billion poured into it just for this year but is considered insolvent at that level.

Florida needs cash badly.

Of course, they've banned even using the word climate change in government docs, so yeah, actually entirely because of the GOP and the fantasy world they live in.

Cops Are Mad at Ron DeSantis Because He Forces Crappy Made-in-USA Drones on Them

As a libertarian, should you not be celebrating the notion of a business taking care of its own needs, handling its own maintenance without government involvement?

And shouldn't you be terrified that a government would try to target a corporation in the way that DeSantis did just because it did something to criticize him and not out of any public interest?

Especially when the move as originally designed was going to force the taxpayers of the counties that include Disney to assume (I believe) billions in debt that Disney had taken out?

Or does your libertarianism just begin and end with: don't try to give me a guilt trip about anything, don't make me pay taxes, and let me enjoy my weed in peace?

Not if it's through special privileges not extended to the rest of us.

I see it as correcting something that should not have happened.

You mean making them aware of the waste that necessitates an egregious tax burden?

I've never argued for a complete absence of taxation.

In terms of the original district, there were basically two choices: allow Disney the ability to handle these matters on its own by setting up this board with quasi-governmental powers to handle maintenance, roads, police and fire on land it owns, or have the actual county governments and taxpayers shoulder those responsibilities. I don't know if there is a viable third alternative. But feel free to propose one. What do you think should have happened?

Given those two choices, I'd hope that both non-libertarians and libertarians would see the first as the better of the two, generally speaking.

The move was not "making [taxpayers] aware of the waste that necessitates an egregious tax burden." Disney took on debt because capital projects cost money. Disney was in a position to pay it back at its leisure, with no taxpayer money involved. DeSantis in his hurry to try to teach Disney a lesson for daring to criticize him, engineered a thinly veiled rationale about special treatment. And he then sought to dissolve that entity, which would then necessitate the local governments picking up those debts.

Sorry, I should have rephrased that as "don't make me pay more than the bare minimum of taxes."

Your definition of "bare minimum" is probably UA's equivalent of "outrageous and confiscatory."

My bare minimum would be 1:1 with the sum of my own usage and consumption.

Uh huh.... and who, pray tell decides?

You mean am I leaving it open to my share of someone else's expenses? Or maybe some arbitrary slice of a collective social or environmental pet cause? No, I am not handing out blank checks, and I don't accept that I was born into debt.

So let's play this out. Should the amount of taxes you pay fluctuate with your actual use of government services? In other words, if in 2022, you never directly called the cops or the fire department, your taxes should be reduced accordingly? But if you did, it would be fair that they are increased accordingly?

You hopefully see where this is going, right? There would basically be no way to create a stable year-to-year budget if you could only assess the propriety of taxes based on individuals' aggregate usage, rather than the way actual people budget, which is to say "given that we have this size of a population, we project that we will need to do X tasks, and we thus will need Y employees and Z equipment and infrastructure," realizing that there will be times where that projection is overly optimistic and times when it is overly conservative. It would also be next to impossible to work on a large scale how much each person actually uses. This is particularly true in cases where things are not necessarily transactional in nature. We pay for road maintenance even if we do not ever personally travel on given roads.

Gee, it's almost like libertarianism is infantile and asinine.

In fairness, I think that there is a version of libertarianism that could be well-thought out and mature etc.

But given that WF's previous leading proponent of it turned out to be a Nazi, I'm still looking for people to express more than "F--- you, I got mine."

Tell you what, hold your breath waiting for a while and I'll call 911 in a couple of hours.

Yes, a flat rate would be necessary where usage fees could not be implemented. FLAT. Not determined by your income. That's for police, military, fire departments.

Usage fees would be for things like roads and schools. Since I am currently using neither, my obligation towards them would be zero.

This is a familiar conversation here, of course. So which route will it take? That I'm heartless to refuse to pay for other peoples' kids? Will someone offer up extortion as a virtuous position? That it is just impossible to implement toll roads at all, even though they already fucking exist?

How about this: you’re living in fantasy land adhering to a philosophy that has proven time and again to be total bullshit?

It's not BS, the claim it's an impractical fantasy utopia has come up many times, and each time UA has shot those claims down by giving the examples of places that have managed to implement his preferred approach.

Here's the full list of examples:





.

Uh huh, that's interesting and all, but I'm curious what your bear minimum would be?

Whatever he decides it is.

Which do you suppose is larger ... the list of people who think they pay more in taxes than they consume in services, or the list of people who actually do?

That's a tough one. I haven't flown since '07, so technically, I don't use air travel. However, I also live within the flight pattern of a couple of airports, so things like FAA regulations keep me safe, and also ensure that the stuff I order that's shipped by air gets delivered safely. So, some might argue that since I'm not buying plane tickets, I shouldn't have to pay for things like the FAA. But then again, I don't have to worry about planes falling out of the sky, so...

We can go with any example where any of that has been done to any degree. The same low bar you fucknuts set for socialism.

Therefore, as toll roads and tuition schools HAVE been done, that's all the proof I need.