Re: A critique of "Geolibertarianism" (Georgism)
- From: Robert Kolker <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:25:05 -0500
Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
I'd say physical resources are deivsible (iron ore, yes, clearly,
sunlight, yes but quite a bit more difficult), but concepts are not. How
would you divide "the number 3"?
Very carefully. It is prime.
Bob Kolker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A critique of "Geolibertarianism" (Georgism)
- From: royls
- Re: A critique of "Geolibertarianism" (Georgism)
- References:
- A critique of "Geolibertarianism" (Georgism)
- From: Peter Bjørn Perlsø
- Re: A critique of "Geolibertarianism" (Georgism)
- From: Peter Bjørn Perlsø
- Re: A critique of "Geolibertarianism" (Georgism)
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: A critique of "Geolibertarianism" (Georgism)
- From: Robert Kolker
- Re: A critique of "Geolibertarianism" (Georgism)
- From: Peter Bjørn Perlsø
- A critique of "Geolibertarianism" (Georgism)
- Prev by Date: Re: Definition of "rich"?
- Next by Date: Re: Definition of "rich"?
- Previous by thread: Re: A critique of "Geolibertarianism" (Georgism)
- Next by thread: Re: A critique of "Geolibertarianism" (Georgism)
- Index(es):
