LVT is a tax on the value of the land specifically, not a traditional property tax. This encourages development on valuable land that is currently being put to unproductive uses.

For example, if you own a lot in a downtown metro which is a parking lot you pay low property taxes because parking lots have low property values. You are disincentivised to develop it because your property tax would go up. Opposite incentives with a LVT.

I understand that, but what should the actual rate of the LVT be? If the LVT rate is too high, nobody will want to develop that parking lot at all because the taxes outweigh the possible profit. And if they are lower than land appreciation, speculation is encouraged.

I agree that more personal growth can be taken from reviewing other's behavior rather than analysis of their "overall morality". However, when people are powerful and their actions effect many people it is very important to reflect on the morality of their actions.

Holding powerful people and institutions to account for the morality of their actions can and has been a powerful force for good.

You are clearly describing "villainizing" people or groups. This is actually the opposite of moralism, which would be criticizing specific violations of morals.

Moralism can make people see things without nuance (i.e. saying "stealing is bad" with no regard for the context). This must be tempered. But this is not a good reason to throw out the pursuit of shared moral values within society.

I find this a profoundly odd response to the story. Is your intent to excuse her abusive treatment by the religious, medical, and government authorities of a totalitarian regime?

Your comment is treating her with full agency (i.e. "she shouldn't have done anything bad or disruptive") and completely ignoring the agency of the institutions that harmed her (i.e. "what did she expect in response?").