3 ms·
No, I didn't. OP is trying to make this a lovely cost-free dynamic, where all we have to do is let our brother crabs get out of the bucket without dragging them
by h4nkoslo 10y ago
No, I didn't. OP is trying to make this a lovely cost-free dynamic, where all we have to do is let our brother crabs get out of the bucket without dragging them down, man.
That's bullshit. In reality OP proposes to transfer money from me to people who made investments in human capital that didn't pan out.
Maybe that's their fault, because they invested foolishly. Maybe it's nobody's fault, because they invested in a positive-expectation bet and got bit by the variance (it does suck when you take out a loan to go to nursing school, and the feds decide to import a bunch of Filipino nurses instead). Maybe they were the victim of fraud, and someone sold them a bill of goods.
In any case, it has nothing to do with me.
- Neeek 10y agoBut it does have to do with you? All of this affects the world you live in, the world that you interact with directly every single day. The house you live in, the wage you're paid, the food you eat, the medicine you receive, everything in your life depends on other people. Whether you agree with the way your government is handling this or not, it all still has everything to do with you.
- h4nkoslo 10y agoYeah man, like, butterfly effect, you know? Rather more direct when they're taking my money to do so. This isn't an abstract "ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee" scenario, and the alternative is not personal autarky. OP is proposing a direct transfer, from me to a stranger, to which I am opposed, and therefore one which must be imposed by force. The alternative is not imposing such a transfer. Cut a check yourself if you think it's a good idea. Bullshit about the universal brotherhood of man and unity of the volk does not excuse arbitrary impositions.
- Neeek 10y agoPlease note, I'm not taking sides in this. Your last sentence was all I had issue with.