Morgan Freeman Converts His 124-Acre Ranch into a Giant Bee Sanctuary
21–30 of 121 posts
Re: Morgan Freeman Converts His 124-Acre Ranch into a Giant Bee Sanctuary
#22124 acres =~ 0.5 square km or 50 hectar
so pretty big
Re: Morgan Freeman Converts His 124-Acre Ranch into a Giant Bee Sanctuary
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've yet to see an argument for why using tax incentives to coerce good outcomes from people is even a bad thing
Because it can easily be corrupted since you can’t define “good outcome”, and it’s impossible to prosecute quid pro quo for a wink and nod deal since there isn’t sufficient evidence. In a democracy, the government exists to provide a set of services agreed upon by the people for the benefit of all the people, many times via their elected representatives. Roads, educational facilities, welfare, military, all of those…
They also wouldn't disappear if Morgan Freeman had decided to volunteer his labor for a foundation for free - thereby not earning any taxable income - yet the State would have to work it out. In this case, the labor donation was just done indirectly.
Re: Morgan Freeman Converts His 124-Acre Ranch into a Giant Bee Sanctuary
#24124 acres doesn't seem all that giant, not even a half mile squared. Maybe I'm reading "Giant Bee Sanctuary" wrong. Is it a sanctuary for Giant Bees[0]? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19221337
Re: Morgan Freeman Converts His 124-Acre Ranch into a Giant Bee Sanctuary
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you describe the sanctuary nearby? We live on a typical city lot, and I am going to try to become a mini-sanctuary over the next few years and would love working examples.
Be careful of your city bylaws. I grew a wildflower garden in my backyard in Canada and got a complaint once. Given that the neighbour to one side asked be to do it makes me think it might have been the neighbour on the other side :-) I actually didn't mind cutting it down because I was moving that year anyway, but it pays to talk with your neighbours and find out what the city requires. It is especially important to…
Re: Morgan Freeman Converts His 124-Acre Ranch into a Giant Bee Sanctuary
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've yet to see an argument for why using tax incentives to coerce good outcomes from people is even a bad thing
Because it can easily be corrupted since you can’t define “good outcome”, and it’s impossible to prosecute quid pro quo for a wink and nod deal since there isn’t sufficient evidence. In a democracy, the government exists to provide a set of services agreed upon by the people for the benefit of all the people, many times via their elected representatives. Roads, educational facilities, welfare, military, all of those…
Re: Morgan Freeman Converts His 124-Acre Ranch into a Giant Bee Sanctuary
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've yet to see an argument for why using tax incentives to coerce good outcomes from people is even a bad thing
The typical argument is that "tax incentives", whether positive or negative, ultimately come from other people's hard work and money. And those people may not agree with you (the benevolent distributor of incentives) on what "good outcomes" are. TL;DR: People have their own, often highly idiosyncratic ideas about what's worthwhile and how they want to spend their money.
I was under the impression that in a democracy there was no single BDFL.
Re: Morgan Freeman Converts His 124-Acre Ranch into a Giant Bee Sanctuary
#28I've seen people calling him out the use of the word "sanctuary" and suggesting that this is really just sanctuary for taxes, not bees. As a pre-emptive counterargument, there's nothing saying that all 124 acres of his ranch can or should host bees. There are tons of arguments for not wanting the hives near the house, other outbuildings, or anywhere animals are kept, for example. It may be that only 26 acres or so (a…
Re: Morgan Freeman Converts His 124-Acre Ranch into a Giant Bee Sanctuary
#29Re: Morgan Freeman Converts His 124-Acre Ranch into a Giant Bee Sanctuary
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've yet to see an argument for why using tax incentives to coerce good outcomes from people is even a bad thing
Because it can easily be corrupted since you can’t define “good outcome”, and it’s impossible to prosecute quid pro quo for a wink and nod deal since there isn’t sufficient evidence. In a democracy, the government exists to provide a set of services agreed upon by the people for the benefit of all the people, many times via their elected representatives. Roads, educational facilities, welfare, military, all of those…
This is literally what people have voted for by having tax deductions for certain "good" things, like giving to charity, using some of your land for bees or whatever.
Just because it's agreed that something should be done in the aggregate, doesn't mean that it needs to be centrally managed by some state agency. You decide X is wanted, and then leave the implementation to distributed decision making.