Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)GA
Posts
1
Comments
433
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • What you're describing is effectively an attempt at security through obscurity, which doesn't work. If an attacker is interested on a specific target, going through the source code searching for bugs isn't too different from performing a black box attack.

  • The implosion of Argentina is a very complex issue, but, essentially, the country allowed itself to be informally dollarized and ceded control over most of its industries to international (read corporativist) interests. When Perón restructured the country, it was done with a limited scope and with relatively short term changes, causing their economy to collapse again later (it doesn't help that Brazil, a powerful potential ally, had undergone a rightwing U.S.-backed coup at the time). Then, the whole Falklands/Malvinas war happened, all rightwing bullshit, and the country still hasn't bounced back.

  • That's the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren't currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.

  • It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.

    Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don't think that's a very productive topic...

    So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?

    Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.

    And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?

    That would be incentivised, yes.

  • That's the ideal solution, but not the only solution.

    So there should be no land ownership

    There already isn't, in absolute terms. A government can reposses any piece of land within its territory (maybe with the exception of embassies) at its own discretion.

    Another simple solution is that the taxation on any land should be proportional to its market value deduced from a "usefulness" score, i.e. tilled land used for farming is very useful, therefore shouldn't have increased taxes. Empty houses aren't useful at all, therefore high taxes are justified. This is a developed application of Land Value Taxation.