ingliz wrote:Georgism is the new fad for the politically naive teenager.
When you have been demolished, humiliated, and comprehensively and conclusively refuted on every single substantive claim you have made in posts related to geoism, of course you have to resort to sneering, belittling, and name-calling. There is nothing else you can do.
Georgism was a fad for the politically naive teenager in the 19th century too, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
As it is from a Marxist, the above gets my nomination for "Unconscious Irony of the Month."
It is
proverbial that politically naïve teenagers are Marxists, or at least socialists. So for a Marxist to accuse geoists of being politically naïve teenagers is blatant projection. To understand geoist theory requires some economic sophistication, whereas it is specifically Marxist propaganda that relies on the reader's economic naivete.
I am (de)baiting three of these children over in the Libtard place now, childish I know.
I invite readers to verify for themselves that ingliz's "contributions" in threads related to geoist theory are indeed just as childish as he says, and just as much more baiting than debating as he says.
One of the children wrote:Not satisfied with having been proved objectively wrong and dishonest on every single substantive claim you have made in this thread, you now have to disgrace yourself even further by dishonestly editing out the context and then putting as if you had not been caught in error again, and refuted again. As I've mentioned before, in more than 20 years of active participation on Internet forums I have never encountered such extreme, dishonest context chopping as yours.
Alert readers will note that this description of ingliz's self-disgrace is completely accurate.
taxizen wrote:Georgism isn't without some merit on utilitarian grounds
And moral and economic grounds...
but de-ontologically it is more of the same nonsense.
You have seen that claim conclusively refuted, and you have been unable to support it. You are able to maintain your belief in it only by somehow preventing yourself from knowing the fact that capital is produced by labor while land is not. So of course you simply repeat your proved-false claim.