4 ms·

> The economic system we collectively create absolutely "gives" and "takes" from different groups, all the time. The notion that it's fine for one group to shif

> The economic system we collectively create absolutely "gives" and "takes" from different groups, all the time. The notion that it's fine for one group to shift the rules to help themselves and harm others, but it's not fine for the harmed to try to retaliate (even via a voting-driven "revolt") is silly. That's a very "class conflict" approach in the Marxist sense. It's not clear this was what was argued in the post I was answering to. In any case, that analysis is obviously highly political, and the least that can be said is that not everybody agrees with it.

ashark 9y ago
> That's a very "class conflict" approach in the Marxist sense. It's not clear this was what was argued in the post I was answering to. The topic under discussion is the changing of economic rules to benefit some at the expense of others. It's the heart of the linked paper (TFA), and may be assumed as context for a root-level comment's assertions. > In any case, that analysis is obviously highly political, and the least that can be said is that not everybody agrees with it. That certain economic rules benefit some and harm others seems pretty uncontroversial. That those who are harmed by changes to said rules should quit expecting to be "given" things and just work harder seems like an obvious double-standard. That coupling of economic power to political power makes ethical reasoning on this topic in particular a bit muddy also seems uncontroversial.