By analogy: “I don’t need to read On The Origin of Species because I’m already familiar with the idea that a singular designer made all of life on earth and I don’t believe it! I already know that actually three intelligent designers made everything on earth. No sense in reading Darwin, who is an idiot for believing there’s only one intelligent designer!”
Like it is a satirical level of misunderstanding. To clarify, in case you’ve also listened to a podcast or whatever: Darwin doesn’t argue there’s one designer. George doesn’t argue for property tax.
There’s nowhere for the conversation to go if you think otherwise and are digging in your heels on it, so I’ll just reassure you that you’re exhibiting satirical levels of misunderstanding and frankly shocking foolishness to not be reacting to point blank demonstrations of your wrongness.
No, this is like saying I'm not going to read "Origin of Species" because it is dated and redundant. You don't have to disagree with something to know it's not worth your time.
>George doesn’t argue for property tax.
I don't think this is correct. But hey, you can redefine words all you want. A tax on land versus a tax on property, it's all just another tax.
>Like it is a satirical level of misunderstanding.
It's not satirical or a misunderstanding on my end as far as I'm concerned. I don't care to continue this discussion either. No matter what I'll say you'll demand I read the book, which I'm not going to do. When I compare it to anything you'll accuse me of misunderstanding something so basic as a tax. No thanks, take it up with someone who cares.
Well, I know you don't think that's correct, but that's because you're wrong. You haven't read George's argument and I have, so we're just not on equal footing here.
> A tax on land versus a tax on property, it's all just another tax.
An income tax is also a property tax is also a land tax is also a capital gains tax, yes? This is one way in which you're wrong.
And no, if you didn't exhibit both a ridiculous misunderstanding and an astounding level of confidence in your ignorance, I wouldn't implore you to read the book. You're obviously welcome to carry your ignorance with pride though, so have a good week!
By analogy: “I don’t need to read On The Origin of Species because I’m already familiar with the idea that a singular designer made all of life on earth and I don’t believe it! I already know that actually three intelligent designers made everything on earth. No sense in reading Darwin, who is an idiot for believing there’s only one intelligent designer!”
Like it is a satirical level of misunderstanding. To clarify, in case you’ve also listened to a podcast or whatever: Darwin doesn’t argue there’s one designer. George doesn’t argue for property tax.
There’s nowhere for the conversation to go if you think otherwise and are digging in your heels on it, so I’ll just reassure you that you’re exhibiting satirical levels of misunderstanding and frankly shocking foolishness to not be reacting to point blank demonstrations of your wrongness.