3 ms·

> Basic fair reality: if you don't work, you starve. If you work, you get rich. If you don't work, you stay poor. Basically, there is no need for anyone to st

> Basic fair reality: if you don't work, you starve. If you work, you get rich. If you don't work, you stay poor. Basically, there is no need for anyone to starve to make the system "fair". Why do you insist on killing people? Why do you think death is the right penalty for not working? Is a death of a person better than forcing another person to share a bit of their wealth? If so, why? I don't understand at all, but then I was born in Europe and live in EU, so I guess that's expected...

ctdonath 10y ago
It's not a "death penalty". It's natural reality, akin to stepping off a high cliff - a choice with natural consequences. Forcing another person to share a bit of their wealth IS a death threat. Why do you think death is the right penalty for not sharing a bit of wealth?
- klibertp 10y ago
  > It's natural reality Well, yeah, but this is why we form a society: to make ourselves immune to what's natural (as in "what animals do"). There's no need for society rules to emulate a savannah we all come from, is there? > Forcing another person to share a bit of their wealth IS a death threat. ? I don't understand?
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    You say "share your wealth". I say "no". How do you intend to resolve this? likely by an escalation of force, via fines, incarceration, and (if I say "no" with enough force) siege or execution. That's how government fundamentally works: escalation of compulsion until submission or death.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      >That's how government fundamentally works: escalation of compulsion until submission or death. Of course, but it goes the other way around, too. I say, "I'll take some fruit off this tree". You say, "die trespasser!" and shoot at me. You have now shot at me. You no doubt have an ideological justification: that property titles magically justify shooting at nonviolent people in a way that nothing else does. You equate alternative management schemes for natural resources with physical violence against a human being, which is why your scheme inevitably breaks down into you finding elaborate ways to say "fuck you and die" to everyone around you while spraying machine-gun fire everywhere.

ctdonath 10y ago

It's not a "death penalty". It's natural reality, akin to stepping off a high cliff - a choice with natural consequences. Forcing another person to share a bit of their wealth IS a death threat. Why do you think death is the right penalty for not sharing a bit of wealth?

klibertp 10y ago
> It's natural reality Well, yeah, but this is why we form a society: to make ourselves immune to what's natural (as in "what animals do"). There's no need for society rules to emulate a savannah we all come from, is there? > Forcing another person to share a bit of their wealth IS a death threat. ? I don't understand?
- ctdonath 10y ago
  You say "share your wealth". I say "no". How do you intend to resolve this? likely by an escalation of force, via fines, incarceration, and (if I say "no" with enough force) siege or execution. That's how government fundamentally works: escalation of compulsion until submission or death.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >That's how government fundamentally works: escalation of compulsion until submission or death. Of course, but it goes the other way around, too. I say, "I'll take some fruit off this tree". You say, "die trespasser!" and shoot at me. You have now shot at me. You no doubt have an ideological justification: that property titles magically justify shooting at nonviolent people in a way that nothing else does. You equate alternative management schemes for natural resources with physical violence against a human being, which is why your scheme inevitably breaks down into you finding elaborate ways to say "fuck you and die" to everyone around you while spraying machine-gun fire everywhere.