5 ms·

crux_ makes a very strong argument that deserves to be addressed rather than dismissed without comment.

by keating 19y ago

mynameishere 19y ago
Well, crux_ misrepresented my views, and that's that. But fine: At birth, does one newborn somehow deserve better education, improved nutrition, and a life that will offer far more opportunities and fewer hardships than some other child? In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. The only way to force equality is just that: To force it. People who are careful with their finances, with their vocations, with their reproductive activity inevitably wind up supporting other people's children. Think what you will about that. To me, it is disgustingly criminal.
- abstractbill 19y ago
  In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. That doesn't sound like a "cold, hard fact" to me. It sounds like an opinion on the best way to structure responsibility within a society. Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? If so, why do you specifically exclude children?
  - mynameishere 19y ago
    Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? Yes: To not force others to raise my children.
    - jacobolus 19y ago
      That’s not a responsibility to society. That’s a rejection of society. Which is to say, in your eagerness to repeat your previous point again, you’re deliberately avoiding the question asked of you. If the answer is “no”, you shouldn’t be afraid to say so.
      - deleted 19y ago
        [deleted]
- keating 19y ago
  > inevitably wind up supporting other people's children. Think what you will about that. To me, it is disgustingly criminal. Leaving those children hanging out to dry would be what I'd consider disgustingly criminal. I'm not sure I can get my bile to rise to that level for helping them. Being taxed to help children is about the last thing I'd fight against, as a matter of priority. First I'd go after the actual wasting of tax dollars, which helping children certainly is not. In fact, it's essential if you care about society even from a _self-interested_ standpoint. It's similar to health insurance. Is it "fair" that if you don't need to use it, you end up paying for other people who aren't so fortunate? If you live long enough, the probability approaches 1 that you'll need it. And it may cover more in hospital bills for you than you paid into the system. I think the essential basis of your objection is that life is a competition and that if you're winning, you should be able to press your advantage instead of having your lead reduced by outside interference. By contrast, those of us in the "cooperation" camp think instead of fighting over who gets the bigger piece of a smaller pie, we can make the whole pie bigger. And taking a broader view, even eliminate competition altogether by providing computational resources to each individual that will maximize hir experience of life (via completely convincing VR), given what our limited brains are even capable of and how it pales in comparison to the possibilities of nonbiological intelligence.
cturner 19y ago
Still, crux_ is playing the straw man, and it's risky to legitimise such comments. He is twisting his parent through bad interpretation to be a comment about what people 'deserve', and then develops this theme. So let me attempt to deal with that idea of 'deserving'. What people 'deserve' is arbitrary, and extremely position sensitive. For instance - what if you were to phrase the education issue in terms of "if somebody works part time and wants to pay to attend university to do extra subjects that are not provided under government university sponsorship, do they deserve to be allowed to do so?" Or "if somebody works hard and drives an old bomb of a car in order to save money to pay for a particular education for their children, do they deserve to be allowed to make that choice?" Or, "if somebody wants to spend five years sitting around smoking marijuana and collecting government benefits while failing to make any progress on the degree they're supposed to be doing, do they deserve government funding for this, when the opportunity cost for that choice hits poor people who have no interest in a university education but who can't get jobs due to the correspondingly higher levels of taxation required to fund such university places?" The idea of what people 'deserve' is completely arbitrary. Ideas like 'deserve' and 'fairness' don't belong in public policy, except in reference to: * direct application of the rule of law * formation and honouring of private contracts * ownership of private property (and that excludes anti-rights that are often mislabeled as property, such as "copyright") These rules extend from the idea that you should be allowed to do what you like so long as you are not impinging on your neighbour. As 'mynameishere' says in the existing reply to this comment, the only way to guarantee other equality on other levels is to force some individuals to give up something for the benefit of expense of others. And one of the side-effects of that sort of thinking is policy that acts against even the common interest. If you ban private schools so that everyone can be equal, that means people who would have put extra money into education (creating spaces in private schools and thereby removing demand form the public sector) instead spend it on improvements to their house or funding a more luxurious lifestyle. People who to improve education standards for poor people by abolishing private education need to think harder. And people who want to make everyone equal regardless of relative outcome need to have a look at Cambodia. I'd like to return to another part of mynameishere's previous comment: "We want to pay right-thinking, liberal arts majors middle class salaries for them to administer money distributions from functional people to dysfunctional people". Governments tend to grow in a way that gives more work and power to the decision makers. This process is the enemy of individual freedom, and - as a general measure - fails on a utilitarian basis, also. If they don't have unambiguous facts to support what they're doing then they need to be blocked.

crux_ makes a very strong argument that deserves to be addressed rather than dismissed without comment.

by keating 19y ago

crux_ makes a very strong argument that deserves to be addressed rather than dismissed without comment.

Well, crux_ misrepresented my views, and that's that. But fine: At birth, does one newborn somehow deserve better education, improved nutrition, and a life that will offer far more opportunities and fewer hardships than some other child? In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. The only way to force equality is just that: To force it. People who are careful with their finances, with their vocations, with their reproductive activity inevitably wind up supporting other people's children. Think what you will about that. To me, it is disgustingly criminal.

abstractbill 19y ago
In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. That doesn't sound like a "cold, hard fact" to me. It sounds like an opinion on the best way to structure responsibility within a society. Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? If so, why do you specifically exclude children?
- mynameishere 19y ago
  Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? Yes: To not force others to raise my children.
  - jacobolus 19y ago
    That’s not a responsibility to society. That’s a rejection of society. Which is to say, in your eagerness to repeat your previous point again, you’re deliberately avoiding the question asked of you. If the answer is “no”, you shouldn’t be afraid to say so.
    - deleted 19y ago
      [deleted]
keating 19y ago
> inevitably wind up supporting other people's children. Think what you will about that. To me, it is disgustingly criminal. Leaving those children hanging out to dry would be what I'd consider disgustingly criminal. I'm not sure I can get my bile to rise to that level for helping them. Being taxed to help children is about the last thing I'd fight against, as a matter of priority. First I'd go after the actual wasting of tax dollars, which helping children certainly is not. In fact, it's essential if you care about society even from a _self-interested_ standpoint. It's similar to health insurance. Is it "fair" that if you don't need to use it, you end up paying for other people who aren't so fortunate? If you live long enough, the probability approaches 1 that you'll need it. And it may cover more in hospital bills for you than you paid into the system. I think the essential basis of your objection is that life is a competition and that if you're winning, you should be able to press your advantage instead of having your lead reduced by outside interference. By contrast, those of us in the "cooperation" camp think instead of fighting over who gets the bigger piece of a smaller pie, we can make the whole pie bigger. And taking a broader view, even eliminate competition altogether by providing computational resources to each individual that will maximize hir experience of life (via completely convincing VR), given what our limited brains are even capable of and how it pales in comparison to the possibilities of nonbiological intelligence.

cturner 19y ago

Still, crux_ is playing the straw man, and it's risky to legitimise such comments. He is twisting his parent through bad interpretation to be a comment about what people 'deserve', and then develops this theme. So let me attempt to deal with that idea of 'deserving'. What people 'deserve' is arbitrary, and extremely position sensitive. For instance - what if you were to phrase the education issue in terms of "if somebody works part time and wants to pay to attend university to do extra subjects that are not provided under government university sponsorship, do they deserve to be allowed to do so?" Or "if somebody works hard and drives an old bomb of a car in order to save money to pay for a particular education for their children, do they deserve to be allowed to make that choice?" Or, "if somebody wants to spend five years sitting around smoking marijuana and collecting government benefits while failing to make any progress on the degree they're supposed to be doing, do they deserve government funding for this, when the opportunity cost for that choice hits poor people who have no interest in a university education but who can't get jobs due to the correspondingly higher levels of taxation required to fund such university places?" The idea of what people 'deserve' is completely arbitrary. Ideas like 'deserve' and 'fairness' don't belong in public policy, except in reference to: * direct application of the rule of law * formation and honouring of private contracts * ownership of private property (and that excludes anti-rights that are often mislabeled as property, such as "copyright") These rules extend from the idea that you should be allowed to do what you like so long as you are not impinging on your neighbour. As 'mynameishere' says in the existing reply to this comment, the only way to guarantee other equality on other levels is to force some individuals to give up something for the benefit of expense of others. And one of the side-effects of that sort of thinking is policy that acts against even the common interest. If you ban private schools so that everyone can be equal, that means people who would have put extra money into education (creating spaces in private schools and thereby removing demand form the public sector) instead spend it on improvements to their house or funding a more luxurious lifestyle. People who to improve education standards for poor people by abolishing private education need to think harder. And people who want to make everyone equal regardless of relative outcome need to have a look at Cambodia. I'd like to return to another part of mynameishere's previous comment: "We want to pay right-thinking, liberal arts majors middle class salaries for them to administer money distributions from functional people to dysfunctional people". Governments tend to grow in a way that gives more work and power to the decision makers. This process is the enemy of individual freedom, and - as a general measure - fails on a utilitarian basis, also. If they don't have unambiguous facts to support what they're doing then they need to be blocked.